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
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;
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
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
Hi,
Is init_priority affects initialization order across different namespaces?
Means in the code (the same file)
namespace x_sp { Foo a_x __attribute__ ((init_priority (2000))); }
namespace y_sp { Foo a_y __attribute__ ((init_priority (1000))); }
which object will be initialized first?
Sergey Kl
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Sergey Kljopov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is init_priority affects initialization order across different namespaces?
> Means in the code (the same file)
> namespace x_sp { Foo a_x __attribute__ ((init_priority (2000))); }
> namespace y_sp { Foo a_y __attribute__ ((init_priori
