On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 05/06/2013 07:41 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote: >> >> Evgeny Gavrin wrote: >>> >>> What do you think about support of OpenACC 1.0 >>> (http://www.openacc-standard.org/) in gcc? >> >> >> I like the idea - though, I wonder whether OpenMP 4.0's "target"* would >> be the better choice as it looks a bit more flexible and better defined. >> (Conceptually, they are very similar; I think the >> middle-end/back-end/library part would even be the same.) > > We're certainly hoping that OpenACC & OpenMP 4 & Cilk+ can share certain > parts of their implementations. We're already seeing OpenMP 4 and Cilk > starting to converge on some stuff. > > In a perfect world, there'd only be one standard for this stuff. That's not > likely, so I'd be happy with parsing/FE kinds of things being specific to > each standard with everything from initial gimple generation through the > optimizers being shared. That may not ultimately be possible, but I think > that's the right way to look at the work.
We're going to look at supporting HSA from GCC (which would make it more or less trivial to also target openCL I think) and also hope to leverage parts of the GOMP infrastructure for this (GOMP is currently the only way to annotate parallel regions, apart from autodetecting them). If Cilk+ and OpenACC provide additional ways of annotating parallel regions then it would be nice to have the middle-end see only a single consistent way of a parallel region. Richard. > Jeff
