Hi Tobias!
On 20.02.2014 03:51, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On 10.02.2014 02:22, Tobias Burnus wrote:
a) Does this part work well when both -fopenmp and -fopenacc is
used? I mean: !$acc loop followed/preceded by !$omp do? I could
imagine that there could be clashes, especially when - e.g. -
Hi Tobias!
Thanks a lot for your review!
I have tested your notes on two compilers which support OpenACC: PGI
14.1 and CAPS 3.4.1.
If I made a mistake and you've collected results which differ from mine
(whether you compiler is one of the above or not), please, let me know.
Unfortunally,
Hi Ilmir,
thanks for your reply; I am looking forward to your updated patch.
Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
I have tested your notes on two compilers which support OpenACC: PGI
14.1 and CAPS 3.4.1.
I can add Cray ftn results, if you want me to cross-check something.
On 10.02.2014 02:22, Tobias
Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
OpenACC 1.0 support to fortran FE -- core.
--- a/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c
@@ -1031,9 +1031,22 @@ show_omp_node (int level, gfc_code *c)
{
gfc_omp_clauses *omp_clauses = NULL;
const char *name = NULL;
+ bool is_oacc =
Hi Jakub!
On 31.01.2014 15:45, Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
Hi Jakub!
Thank you for review and quick answer.
The above are OpenACC specific clauses, so they should have OACC_LIST_*?
I just followed Thomas's style recomendations:
If we're adding new names for implementing OpenACC things, maybe we
OpenACC 1.0 support to fortran FE -- core.
gcc/fortran/
* dump-parse-tree.c
(show_omp_node): Dump also OpenACC executable statements.
(show_code_node): Call it.
* gfortran.h
(ST_OACC_PARALLEL_LOOP, ST_OACC_END_PARALLEL_LOOP, ST_OACC_PARALLEL,
ST_OACC_END_PARALLEL,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:10:59PM +0400, Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
@@ -1182,6 +1281,26 @@ show_omp_node (int level, gfc_code *c)
{
switch (list_type)
{
+ case OMP_LIST_COPY: type = COPY; break;
+ case OMP_LIST_OACC_COPYIN: type = COPYIN; break;
Hi Jakub!
Thank you for review and quick answer.
The above are OpenACC specific clauses, so they should have OACC_LIST_*?
I just followed Thomas's style recomendations:
If we're adding new names for implementing OpenACC things, maybe we
should also name these OMP_*, to keep things simple to
Hi,
Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Regarding my comments, please keep in mind that I don't have a lot of
Fortran experience; neither as a user nor as an implementor
How about CC-ing fortran@gcc for Fortran patches - it increases the
chance that some Fortran maintainer will give some comment on them.
Hi!
Regarding my comments, please keep in mind that I don't have a lot of
Fortran experience; neither as a user nor as an implementor ;-) in the
GCC front end, so don't hesitate to tell me if I'm misunderstanding
something. As I suggested, it may make sense to CC Fortran front end
maintainers
From 84dc72f88c1b23ae995afdda0b946ebd73af102f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ilmir Usmanov i.usma...@samsung.com
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:04:37 +0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] OpenACC fortran FE part 1
---
gcc/fortran/decl.c| 1 +
gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c | 203
11 matches
Mail list logo
