Hi! On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:18:49 +0200, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Bernd Schmidt <ber...@codesourcery.com> > wrote: > > On 10/21/2014 11:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> > >> At least for OpenMP, the best would be if the #pragma omp target regions > >> and/or #pragma omp declare target functions contain anything a particular > >> offloading accelerator can't handle, instead of failing the whole > >> compilation perhaps just emit some at least by default non-fatal warning > >> and not emit anything for the particular offloading target, which would > >> mean > >> either host fallback, or, if some other offloading target succeeded, just > >> that target. > > > > > > I guess a test could be added to mkoffload if gcc were to return a different > > value for a sorry vs. any other compilation failure. The tool could then > > choose not to produce offloading support for that target. > > But that would be for the whole file instead of for the specific region?
I'm not sure that's what you're suggesting, but at least on non-shared memory offloading devices, you can't switch arbitrarily between offloading device(s) and host-fallback, for you have to do data management between the non-shared memories. > So maybe we should produce one LTO offload object for each offload > function and make the symbols they are supposed to provide weak > so a fail doesn't end up failing to link the main program? > > Looks like this gets somewhat awkward with the LTO setup. Grüße, Thomas
pgp6yaImJYJpu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
