Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
>Another interesting use-case for OpenACC and OpenMP is mixing both
>standard
>annotations for the same loop:
> // Compute matrix multiplication.
>#pragma omp parallel for default(none) shared(A,B,C,size)
>#pragma acc kernels pcopyin(A[0:size][0:size],B[0:size][0:size])
Another interesting use-case for OpenACC and OpenMP is mixing both
standard annotations for the same loop:
// Compute matrix multiplication.
#pragma omp parallel for default(none) shared(A,B,C,size)
#pragma acc kernels pcopyin(A[0:size][0:size],B[0:size][0:size]) \
pcopyout(C[0:size][0:size])
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
[Fallback generation of CPU code]
If one uses the OpenMP 4.0 accelerator pragmas, then that is the required
behavior, if the code is for whatever reason not possible to run on the
accelerator, it should be executed on host [...]
(I haven't checked, but is this a compile time
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:00:29AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> Which
> >> means changing the GOMP runtime in a way to be able to pass a descriptor
> >> which eventually has accelerator code (and a fallback regular function so
> >> you can disable accelerator usage at runtime).
> >
> > It prob
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 12:46 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> >> Richard Biener wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> We're going to look
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 10:27 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> > On 05/06/2013 07:41 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Evgeny Gavrin wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> What do you think about support of
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 12:46 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> >> Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We're going to look at supporting HSA from GCC (which would make it more
> >>> or le
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 10:27 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jeff Law 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?
> >
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 17:34 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 11:02:08AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > Richard Biener wrote:
> > >We're going to look at supporting HSA from GCC (which would make
> > >it more or less trivial to also target openCL I think)
> >
> > For the frien
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 13:00 +0400, Evgeny Gavrin wrote:
> Hi, all!
>
> > Which accelerators do you intent to handle? "Accelerator" is a rather
> > broad term, covering DSPs, GPUs, Intel's MIC, ...
> The idea is to emit OpenCL from high-GIMPLE, for know. So, any device
> that has OpenCL support
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 11:02:08AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
> >We're going to look at supporting HSA from GCC (which would make
> >it more or less trivial to also target openCL I think)
>
> For the friends of link-time optimization (LTO):
>
> Unless I missed some fine p
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> We're going to look at supporting HSA from GCC (which would make it more
>>> or less trivial to also target openCL I think)
>>
>>
>> For the friends of l
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> We're going to look at supporting HSA from GCC (which would make it more
>> or less trivial to also target openCL I think)
>
>
> For the friends of link-time optimization (LTO):
>
> Unless I missed some fine point
Richard Biener wrote:
We're going to look at supporting HSA from GCC (which would make it
more or less trivial to also target openCL I think)
For the friends of link-time optimization (LTO):
Unless I missed some fine point in OpenACC and OpenMP's target, they
only work with directives which a
Hi, all!
> Which accelerators do you intent to handle? "Accelerator" is a rather
> broad term, covering DSPs, GPUs, Intel's MIC, ...
The idea is to emit OpenCL from high-GIMPLE, for know. So, any device
that has OpenCL support can be utilized by ACC.
Maybe, we'll be able to reuse some parts from
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jeff Law 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"*
On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 16:17 +0400, Evgeny Gavrin wrote:
> What do you think about support of OpenACC 1.0
> (http://www.openacc-standard.org/) in gcc?
Is there a specific reason for targeting 1.0 instead of 2.0 (besides 2.0
still being declared as a draft)?
Also, adding to Tobias' question: Which
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 de
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;
Hi, all!
What do you think about support of OpenACC 1.0
(http://www.openacc-standard.org/) in gcc?
We're from Samsung Electronics and possibly we can allocate one or two
full-time engineers for this task. We can try to implement it for 4.9
branch by the end of Stage 1.
On my view, it's going
20 matches
Mail list logo
