Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 02:40:27PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Small fix-up for r243673 (Git commit 629b3d75c8c5a244d891a9c292bca6912d4b0dd9) > "Split omp-low into multiple files". > > gcc/ > * Makefile.in (GTFILES): Remove '$(srcdir)/omp-offload.c'. Ok, thanks. > --- >

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

Hi! On 2016-12-09T14:08:21+0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > this is the promised attempt at splitting omp-low.c [...] > --- a/gcc/Makefile.in > +++ b/gcc/Makefile.in > @@ -2479,8 +2483,10 @@ GTFILES = $(CPP_ID_DATA_H) $(srcdir)/input.h > $(srcdir)/coretypes.h \ >

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

Hi, On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:14:32PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > I still couldn't allocate time to review the patch, but at least I now > have tested it -- no regressions. Great, thanks! > As I suppose you want to commit this > as sooner than later ;-) and you already have approval as

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

Hi! On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:42:23 +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:39:01PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:08:21 +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

On 12/13/2016 04:42 AM, Martin Jambor wrote: >> And this as well. But omp-grid.c is fine too. > > ...I prefer omp-grid.c because I plan to use gridification also for > GCN targets, though hopefully only as an optimization rather than a > hard requirement ...and in fact I still think it is a

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Martin Jambor wrote: > I have bootstrapped the two patches on aarch64-linux and bootstrapped > and tested them on x86_64-linux. What do you think? Sorry for my 'false alarm' about cp/parser.c conflict in the previous mail -- I thought I was applying your patch to trunk, but

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

Hi, On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:39:01PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:08:21 +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > > > this is the promised attempt at splitting omp-low.c [...] > > > > Yay! \o/ >

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:39:01PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:08:21 +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > > this is the promised attempt at splitting omp-low.c [...] > > Yay! \o/ > > I have not yet had a chance to review/test this patch, but I plan to. > >

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

Hi! On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:08:21 +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > this is the promised attempt at splitting omp-low.c [...] Yay! \o/ I have not yet had a chance to review/test this patch, but I plan to. A few initial comments from the "bike shed departement"; I understand in GCC

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:15:43AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > I have bootstrapped the two patches on aarch64-linux and bootstrapped > and tested them on x86_64-linux. What do you think? Thanks a lot for the work. If you wouldn't mind doing a couple of further changes (see below), I'd

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

Hi, On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 07:18:54PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Can you post an incremental patch fixing those issues? > > A few small nits I found while reading the patch. > > First of all, please use 'git diff --patience' (or --histogram)

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Can you post an incremental patch fixing those issues? A few small nits I found while reading the patch. First of all, please use 'git diff --patience' (or --histogram) when generating such patches, without it the changes in omp-low.c look uglier than

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:53:41PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > Unfortunately no, that file also needs to be changed, even if very > slightly. Specifically, omp-general.h also needs to be included and > calls to get_oacc_fn_attrib need to be changed to call > oacc_get_fn_attrib. omp-low.h has

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

Hi, On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 04:25:10PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Just one quick question -- do you know if config/nvptx/nvptx.c needs changes > with this patch? I see it has an '#include "omp-low.h"', and it seems your > patch is renaming some functions -- is the

Re: [PATCH] omp-low.c split

Hi Martin, Just one quick question -- do you know if config/nvptx/nvptx.c needs changes with this patch? I see it has an '#include "omp-low.h"', and it seems your patch is renaming some functions -- is the intention that no interfaces used in target-specific files are changed during the split?