Hello Hrishikesh,
I apologize for replying to you this late, this has been a busy week
and now I am traveling.
On Mon, Feb 19 2018, Hrishikesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am Hrishikesh Kulkarni currently studying as an undergrad student in
> Computer Engineering at Pune University, India. I find
Hi Thomas,
thank you very much for your help. I applied the patch to nvptx.c
and was able to build everything. The compiler works for my small
accelerator programs.
loki nvptx 147 diff nvptx.c nvptx.c.orig
1878,1881c1878
< bool function = SYMBOL_REF_DECL (sym)
< && (TREE_CODE (SYMBOL
Sandra Loosemore schrieb:
The internals manual says that a backend for $target should have
$target.h and $target-protos.h files, but doesn't say what the
difference between them is or what belongs in which file. Current
practice seems to be a mix of
(1) $target.h contains macro definitions a
Snapshot gcc-8-20180225 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20180225/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision
Hi
I have read multiple bug reports (84522, 80878, 70490), and the past decision
regarding GCC change to redirect double-width (128-bit) atomics for x86-64 and
arm64 to libatomic. Below I mention major concerns as well as the response from
C11 (WG14) regarding DR 459 which, most likely, triggere
Hello,
Although I wouldn't like to fight defending GCC's design change here, let me
offer a couple of corrections/additions so everyone is on the same page:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Ruslan Nikolaev via gcc wrote:
>
> 1. Not consistent with clang/llvm which completely supports double-width
> atomics
Hi,
today I tried to install gcc-8-20180225 with accelerator support
on my "SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12.3 (x86_64)" with gcc-6.4.0.
I used the following commands to download and build everything.
setenv LD_LIBRARY_PATH ${LD_LIBRARY_PATH}:/usr/local/cuda/lib64
setenv CUDA_INC_PATH
Alexander,
Thank you for your comments. Please see my response below. I definitely do not
want to fight for or against this change in gcc, but there are definitely
legitimate concerns to consider. I think, it would really be good to consider
this change to make things more compatible (i.e., at
