On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Ilya Verbin <iver...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 16:08:27 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> We had established the use of a boolean flag have_offload in gcc::context
>> to indicate whether during compilation, we've actually seen any code to
>> be offloaded (see cited below the relevant parts of the patch by Ilya et
>> al.). This means that currently, the whole offload machinery will not be
>> run unless we actually have any offloaded data. This means that the
>> configured mkoffload programs (-foffload=[...], defaulting to
>> configure-time --enable-offload-targets=[...]) will not be invoked unless
>> we actually have any offloaded data. This means that we will not
>> actually generate constructor code to call libgomp's
>> GOMP_offload_register unless we actually have any offloaded data.
>
> Yes, that was the plan.
>
>> runtime, in libgomp, we then cannot reliably tell which -foffload=[...]
>> targets have been specified during compilation.
>>
>> But: at runtime, I'd like to know which -foffload=[...] targets have been
>> specified during compilation, so that we can, for example, reliably
>> resort to host fallback execution for -foffload=disable instead of
>> getting error message that an offloaded function is missing.
>
> It's easy to fix:
>
> diff --git a/libgomp/target.c b/libgomp/target.c
> index a5fb164..f81d570 100644
> --- a/libgomp/target.c
> +++ b/libgomp/target.c
> @@ -1066,9 +1066,6 @@ gomp_get_target_fn_addr (struct gomp_device_descr
> *devicep,
> k.host_end = k.host_start + 1;
> splay_tree_key tgt_fn = splay_tree_lookup (&devicep->mem_map, &k);
> gomp_mutex_unlock (&devicep->lock);
> - if (tgt_fn == NULL)
> - gomp_fatal ("Target function wasn't mapped");
> -
> return (void *) tgt_fn->tgt_offset;
> }
> }
> @@ -1095,6 +1092,8 @@ GOMP_target (int device, void (*fn) (void *), const
> void *unused,
> return gomp_target_fallback (fn, hostaddrs);
>
> void *fn_addr = gomp_get_target_fn_addr (devicep, fn);
> + if (fn_addr == NULL)
> + return gomp_target_fallback (fn, hostaddrs);
>
> struct target_mem_desc *tgt_vars
> = gomp_map_vars (devicep, mapnum, hostaddrs, NULL, sizes, kinds, false,
> @@ -1155,6 +1154,8 @@ GOMP_target_41 (int device, void (*fn) (void *), size_t
> mapnum,
> }
>
> void *fn_addr = gomp_get_target_fn_addr (devicep, fn);
> + if (fn_addr == NULL)
> + return gomp_target_fallback (fn, hostaddrs);
>
> struct target_mem_desc *tgt_vars
> = gomp_map_vars (devicep, mapnum, hostaddrs, NULL, sizes, kinds, true,
>
>
>> other hand, for example, for -foffload=nvptx-none, even if user program
>> code doesn't contain any offloaded data (and thus the offload machinery
>> has not been run), the user program might still contain any executable
>> directives or OpenACC runtime library calls, so we'd still like to use
>> the libgomp nvptx plugin. However, we currently cannot detect this
>> situation.
>>
>> I see two ways to resolve this: a) embed the compile-time -foffload=[...]
>> configuration in the executable (as a string, for example) for libgomp to
>> look that up, or b) make it a requirement that (if configured via
>> -foffload=[...]), the offload machinery is run even if there is not
>> actually any data to be offloaded, so we then reliably get the respective
>> constructor call to libgomp's GOMP_offload_register. I once began to
>> implement a), but this to get a big ugly, so then looked into b) instead.
>> Compared to the status quo, always running the whole offloading machinery
>> for the configured -foffload=[...] targets whenever -fopenacc/-fopenmp
>> are active, certainly does introduce some overhead when there isn't
>> actually any code to be offloaded, so I'm not sure whether that is
>> acceptable?
>
> I vote for (a).
What happens for conflicting -fofffload=[...] options in different TUs?
Richard.
> -- Ilya
