On 6/16/25 18:25, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 05:49:19PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 08:56:57AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 07:27:31PM +0200, Josef Melcr wrote:
As for the attribute, I am honestly not too sure about what to do, as clang
is
not consistent in with its own indexing, be it with the unknown values, or
with
'this'. I've tried to remain consistent with GCC's indexing style. I guess
I'll
leave up to you and the other maintainers to decide. I can implement clangs
version 1:1, put the attribute in our namespace or rename it. I don't mind
either way. Another option would be to patch clang to get in line with the
rest
of its attributes. It seems like the best option to me, as it would make
being
consistent way easier, but it would be problematic, as all code using this
attribute would need to be updated.
I'll talk to C/C++ FE maintainers what they think.
No progress there so far.
Could you perhaps split the attribute side of the patch off and submit
something that only handles a few OpenMP/OpenACC builtins for now without
that attribute, instead of testing for the attribute test for specific
builtins?
We can go similar direction as with fnspec. Calling it " callback" with
the extra space so it is not user visible but can be used to annotate
builtins and once we agree on user facing interface make it public.
Sure, that works too.
I just wanted to unblock the patch progress.
That is a great idea indeed :)
Josef, if possible, can you prepare a patch that modifies the name to
" callback" and drops the doc/extend.texi documentation of it? We can
then proceed with IPA bits.
Honza
Certainly :) I am sorry about my lack of activity in the last two
months, I've been really busy, first with the thesis and now with
studying for the state finals. I will hopefully wrap up these academic
duties this Thursday and I will finally have the time to resume work on
this patch.
I will add the space then, drop the documentation, fix the formatting
and also track down the segfault Jakub discovered. I will try to get
these changes done as soon as possible.
Regarding Jakub's earlier response about GOMP_task, I will probably drop
the copyfn attribute for now and sort it out incrementally. You also
mentioned that GOMP_task should be special-cased and not use the
attribute at all, could you please help me understand the reasoning
behind that? I am not quite sure why the attribute shouldn't be used in
this case.
I've also CC'd my personal email, as this is my university address and
will lose access to it once I graduate. I am mentioning this now to
avoid confusion later on.
Best regards,
Josef Melcr
