On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:42:02AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> I forgot to add the 2 changelog entries for decl.c and pt.c. The patch is
> attached again with the corrected Changelogs.
This is ok for trunk, thanks.
Jakub
0:37 PM
> To: Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: 'Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com)'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: RE: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly Elemental
> functions) for C++
>
> Hi Jakub,
> I have fixed all the issues you have mentioned
; From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 12:46 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com)'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly Elemental
> functions) f
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:12:29PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> 2013-12-19 Balaji V. Iyer
>
> * parser.c (cp_parser_direct_declarator): When Cilk Plus is enabled
> see if there is an attribute after function decl. If so, then
> parse them now.
> (cp_parser_lat
++.dg/cilk-plus/ef_test.C: New test.
> > * c-c++-common/cilk-plus/vlength_errors.c: Added new dg-error tags
> > to differenciate C error messages from C++ ones.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Balaji V. Iyer.
> >
> > > -Original Message-
Ping!
-Balaji V. Iyer.
> -Original Message-
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:12 PM
> To: Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: 'Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com)'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: RE: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled fun
mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:23 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com)'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly Elemental
> functions) for C++
>
> On W
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:36:04PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> --- a/gcc/cp/decl2.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/decl2.c
> @@ -1124,6 +1124,10 @@ is_late_template_attribute (tree attr, tree decl)
>&& is_attribute_p ("omp declare simd", name))
> return true;
>
> + /* Ditto as above for Cilk Plu
age-
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 11:53 PM
> To: 'Jakub Jelinek'
> Cc: Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: RE: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly Elemental
> functions) for C++
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:41:43PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > --- gcc/c/c-parser.c(revision 205759)
> > +++ gcc/c/c-parser.c(working copy)
> > @@ -208,6 +208,12 @@
> >/* True if we are in a context where the Objective-C "Propert
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 02:32:54PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > Yes, though I still want to optimize it a little bit (generate thunks and/or
> > aliases when desirable/possible), but that only affects exported
> > entry-points
> > for OpenMP, for Cilk+ the code matches more the Intel ABI paper
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@zalov.cz]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 1:31 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Joseph S. Myers; Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); 'gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4]
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:38:48PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > What I meant is
> > if (((mask >> PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_VECTORLENGTH) & 1) != 0)
> > is_cilk_simd_fn = true;
> > (note, for 32-bit HWI targets, omp_clause_mask is a class and not all
> > arithmetic is actually supported on it, s
...@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
> Elemental functions) for C
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 09:13:05PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > @@ -10418,6 +10528,12 @@
> >step = c_parser_expression (parser).
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 09:13:05PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> @@ -10418,6 +10528,12 @@
>step = c_parser_expression (parser).value;
>mark_exp_read (step);
>step = c_fully_fold (step, false, NULL);
> + if (is_cilk_simd_fn && TREE_CODE (step) == PARM_DECL)
> + {
>
ber 17, 2013 1:25 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Joseph S. Myers; Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); 'gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
> Elemental functions) for C
>
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Dec 17,
Hi!
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 05:23:43PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> +/* Returns name of the next clause in Cilk Plus SIMD-enabled function's
> + attribute.
> + If the clause is not recognized PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_NONE is returned and
> + the token is not consumed. Otherwise appropriate pragm
nu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 5:01 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; Joseph S. Myers
> Cc: Aldy Hernandez; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (former
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:18 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Joseph S. Myers; Aldy Hernandez; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Fun
Hi!
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:27:51 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:03:12AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > My understanding/reasoning is that PRAGMA_OMP_* just literally represents
> > a parser token of a pragma line (see the one-to-one translation in
> > c-parser.c:c_par
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:03:12AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > Also, If I created CILK_CLAUSE_* variants, I have to re-create another
> > > function similar to c_parser_omp_all_clauses, whose workings will be
> > > identical to the c_parser_omp_all_clauses. Is that OK with you?
> >
> > N
Hi!
For reference, here's my rationale for OpenACC on this topic:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 07:17:31 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:51:14AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > Hi Jakub,
> > I will work on this, but I need a couple clarifications about some of
> > your co
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:51:14AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> I will work on this, but I need a couple clarifications about some of
> your comments. Please see below:
>
> > > +#define CILK_SIMD_FN_CLAUSE_MASK \
> > > + ( (OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_1 << PRA
Hi Jakub,
I will work on this, but I need a couple clarifications about some of
your comments. Please see below:
> > +#define CILK_SIMD_FN_CLAUSE_MASK \
> > + ( (OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_1 << PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_SIMDLEN)
> \
> > + | (OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_1 << PR
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:41:43PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> --- gcc/c/c-parser.c (revision 205759)
> +++ gcc/c/c-parser.c (working copy)
> @@ -208,6 +208,12 @@
>/* True if we are in a context where the Objective-C "Property attribute"
> keywords are valid. */
>BOOL_BITFIELD o
ek
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:52 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Aldy Hernandez; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
> Elemental functions) for C
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 06:37:22PM +, Iy
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 06:37:22PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> @@ -3765,6 +3777,93 @@
>return attr_name;
> }
>
> +/* Parses the vector attribute of SIMD enabled functions in Cilk Plus.
> + VEC_TOKEN is the "vector" token that is replaced with "simd" and
> + pushed into the token list.
> -Original Message-
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 11:37 AM
> To: Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: FW: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly Elemental
> functions) for C++
e: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
> Elemental functions) for C
>
> > + /* Two CPP_EOF token is added as a safety-net since the normal C
> > + front-end has two token look-ahead. */
>
> "Two CPP_EOF tokens are added"... Also, "sa
+ /* Two CPP_EOF token is added as a safety-net since the normal C
+ front-end has two token look-ahead. */
"Two CPP_EOF tokens are added"... Also, "safety net" are two words, not
one hyphenated one.
Otherwise, I'm fine with the present patch. It's up to Jakub or another
global revie
> -Original Message-
> From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:29 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
On 12/12/13 07:56, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Will it be Ok if I don’t mark them as cilk simd function but just
keep it as omp declare simd from the start? That should get around
this issue.
No, because then we won't be able to distinguish between OMP and Cilk
Plus clones. This is something we do
> -Original Message-
> From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:26 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
On 12/11/13 10:44, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why can't I keep it as-is? It is giving the
correct output/behavior and doesn't seem to interfere with anything
else. The only extra thing I am doing is to add an extra if-statement
while recursing through all the functions to check
t; -Original Message-
> > >> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> > >> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Aldy Hernandez
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:03 PM
> > >> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> > >> Cc: 'Ja
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:38 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
> Elemental functions) for C
>
> On 12/11/13 09:31, Iyer, Bal
> -Original Message-
> From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:38 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions
rg'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions) for C
But aren't both OpenMP and Cilk Plus simd clones marked as "omp
declare simd"? In which case you shouldn't have to do anything?
Are the Cilk Plus clones not being marked
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
> Elemental functions) for C
>
>
> >> But aren't both OpenMP and Cilk Plus simd clones marked as "omp
> >> declare simd"? In which case you shouldn't have to do anything?
>
But aren't both OpenMP and Cilk Plus simd clones marked as "omp
declare simd"? In which case you shouldn't have to do anything?
Are the Cilk Plus clones not being marked as "omp declare simd" in
the front-ends?
Didn't you mention in this thread
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/
.@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 6:16 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
> Elemental functions) for C
>
>
[Jakub, see below]
+ if (!c_parser_elem_fn_vectorlength (parser)) +
{ + c_parser_skip_until_found (parser,
CPP_CLOSE_PAREN, NULL); + /* NO reason to keep
any of these tokens if the + vectorlength is
messed up. */ +
> -Original Message-
> From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 3:20 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (
On 11/30/13 20:38, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Aldy,
Some of the middle end changes I made in the previous patch was not
flying for the C++. Here is a fixed patch where the middle-end changes will
work for both C and C++.
With this email, I am attaching the patch for C along wit
t.C: New test.
>
> Is this OK for branch?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Balaji V. Iyer.
>
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: Iyer, Balaji V
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:19 PM
> > To: Jakub Jelinek
> > Cc: Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com
PING!
-Balaji V. Iyer.
> -Original Message-
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:38 PM
> To: 'al...@redhat.com'
> Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: RE: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled
hes@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly Elemental
> functions) for C++
>
> Hello Everyone,
> Attached, please find a patch that will implement SIMD-enabled
> functions for C++ targeting the gomp-4_0-branch. Here are the Changelog
> entr
rom: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:15 PM
> To: al...@redhat.com
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
> Elemental functions) for C
>
> HI Aldy and Jakub,
> Attached, please fi
.
> -Original Message-
> From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:52 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
> Elemental functions) for
"Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
> c_finish_omp_declare_simd (c_parser *parser, tree fndecl, tree parms,
> vec clauses)
> {
> +
> + if (flag_enable_cilkplus
> + && clauses.exists () && !vec_safe_is_empty (parser->elem_fn_tokens))
> +{
> + error ("%<#pragma omp de
Hernandez
> (al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law
> Subject: RE: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly Elemental
> functions) for C
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:0
Hello Everyone,
Attached, please find a patch that will implement SIMD-enabled
functions for C++ targeting the gomp-4_0-branch. Here are the Changelog
entries. Is this OK to install?
gcc/cp/ChangeLog
2013-11-20 Balaji V. Iyer
* parser.c (cp_parser_direct_declarator): When Cil
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:00 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Joseph S. Myers; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Aldy Hernandez
> (al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law
> Subject: Re: [GOMP4] [PATCH] S
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:00 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Joseph S. Myers; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Aldy Hernandez
> (al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law
> Subject: Re: [GOMP4] [PATCH] S
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:54:29PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> I just need a clarification, so I am sorry if I am making you repeat:
>
> Right now, the array of tokens (vec elem_fn_tokens) is passed in
> as a parameter and then passed back to the c_parser_declaration_or_fndef
> function.
>
> I
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:31 AM
> To: Joseph S. Myers
> Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Aldy Hernandez
> (al...@redhat.com); Jeff Law
> Subject: Re: [GOMP4] [PATCH] S
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:13:34PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > Also, I wonder if you couldn't save the tokens wrapped into some tree
> > temporarily into the attribute, rather than having to adjust
> > c_parser_attribute callers. Joseph, what do
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Also, I wonder if you couldn't save the tokens wrapped into some tree
> temporarily into the attribute, rather than having to adjust
> c_parser_attribute callers. Joseph, what do you prefer here?
I think including whatever parsed data is relevant to th
> Also, I'm not sure I like doing the transformation from Cilk+ to OpenMP
> syntax through rewriting tokens, rather than at the parsing level.
> After all, the Cilk+ syntax is quite different, even when the patch pretends
> it
> is the same, consider e.g. the linear clause, which in Cilk+ allows t
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:35:50PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Attached, please find a patch that will implement SIMD enabled functions
> for C targeting the gomp-4_0-branch. Here are the ChangeLog entries. Is
> this OK to install?
Have you tested say:
int func9 (int x, int y) __attribute__ (
Hello Everyone,
Attached, please find a patch that will implement SIMD enabled
functions for C targeting the gomp-4_0-branch. Here are the ChangeLog entries.
Is this OK to install?
gcc/c/ChangeLog
2013-11-18 Balaji V. Iyer
* c-parser.c (c_parser_declaration_or_fndef): Added
61 matches
Mail list logo
