On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:38:30PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> I'll file a bugzilla for the target construct.
Thanks.
> That said, can we delay FIELD_DECL support for uses_allocators? (which is
> target construct only)
> Since it appears to be not trivial at the moment.
Sure.
But would be
On 2022/6/6 9:22 下午, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:19:18PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2022/5/31 6:02 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
5) for C++, we should handle FIELD_DECLs, but it shouldn't be hard, just
look how it is handled for private too
Jakub
About
On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:19:18PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2022/5/31 6:02 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > 5) for C++, we should handle FIELD_DECLs, but it shouldn't be hard, just
> > look how it is handled for private too
> >
> > Jakub
>
> About private() for non-static members,
On 2022/5/31 6:02 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
5) for C++, we should handle FIELD_DECLs, but it shouldn't be hard, just
look how it is handled for private too
Jakub
About private() for non-static members, is it really working right now?
A simple test:
struct C {
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 07:23:55PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 10:43:30PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> > > This feels like you only accept a single allocator in the new syntax,
> > > but that isn't my reading of the spec, I'd understand it as:
> > >
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 10:43:30PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> > This feels like you only accept a single allocator in the new syntax,
> > but that isn't my reading of the spec, I'd understand it as:
> > uses_allocators (memspace(omp_high_bw_mem_space), traits(foo_traits) : bar,
> > baz, qux)
Hi Jakub,
this is v3 of the uses_allocators patch.
On 2022/5/20 1:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 07:29:23PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
@@ -15624,6 +15626,233 @@ c_parser_omp_clause_allocate (c_parser *parser, tree
list)
return nl;
}
+/* OpenMP 5.2:
+
Hi Jakub,
On 19.05.22 18:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 07:29:23PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
I've attached v2 of the patch. Currently in testing.
Just a general rant, the non-requires dynamic_allocators support
seems to be a total mess in the standard. Probably something
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 06:02:43PM +0100, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 17:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Without requires dynamic_allocators, there are various extra restrictions
> > imposed:
> > 1) omp_init_allocator/omp_destroy_allocator may not be called (except for
> > implicit calls
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 07:29:23PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> @@ -15624,6 +15626,233 @@ c_parser_omp_clause_allocate (c_parser *parser,
> tree list)
>return nl;
> }
>
> +/* OpenMP 5.2:
> + uses_allocators ( allocator-list )
As uses_allocators is a 5.0 feature already, the above
On 19/05/2022 17:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Without requires dynamic_allocators, there are various extra restrictions
imposed:
1) omp_init_allocator/omp_destroy_allocator may not be called (except for
implicit calls to it from uses_allocators) in a target region
I interpreted that more like
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 07:29:23PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> I've attached v2 of the patch. Currently in testing.
Just a general rant, the non-requires dynamic_allocators support
seems to be a total mess in the standard. Probably something
that should be discussed on omp-lang.
Allocators
12 matches
Mail list logo
