Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-13 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/11/2016 09:59 AM, Ilya Verbin wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:47:49 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: I've looked at the generated code in more details, and for armv6 this generates mcr p15, 0, r0, c7, c10, 5 which is not what __cilkrts_fence uses currently (CP15DSB vs CP15DMB)

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-11 Thread Ilya Verbin
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:47:49 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > > > I've looked at the generated code in more details, and for armv6 this > > generates > > mcr p15, 0, r0, c7, c10, 5 > > which is not what __cilkrts_fence uses currently (CP15DSB vs CP15DMB) > > Wow I hadn't noticed that

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-11 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
> > I've looked at the generated code in more details, and for armv6 this > generates > mcr p15, 0, r0, c7, c10, 5 > which is not what __cilkrts_fence uses currently (CP15DSB vs CP15DMB) Wow I hadn't noticed that it was a DSB - DSB is way too heavy weight. Userland shouldn't need to use

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-11 Thread Christophe Lyon
On 10 May 2016 at 21:24, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 10 May 2016 at 19:18, Ilya Verbin wrote: >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 14:36:36 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Christophe Lyon >>> wrote: >>> > On 9 May 2016 at 15:34, Christophe Lyon >>> > wrote: >>> >>

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-10 Thread Christophe Lyon
On 10 May 2016 at 19:18, Ilya Verbin wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 14:36:36 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Christophe Lyon >> wrote: >> > On 9 May 2016 at 15:34, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> On 9 May 2016 at 15:29, Jeff Law wrote: >> >>> On 05/09/2016

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-10 Thread Ilya Verbin
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 14:36:36 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Christophe Lyon > wrote: > > On 9 May 2016 at 15:34, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >> On 9 May 2016 at 15:29, Jeff Law wrote: > >>> On 05/09/2016 01:37 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > After this m

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-10 Thread Ilya Verbin
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 11:39:51 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >well, it breaks the build for many multilib configurations where multilib > >binaries cannot be run on the current environment, e.g. building x32 > >multilibs > >on a kernel which doesn't have x32 enabled. > > > >The reason is again

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-10 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 15:34, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> On 9 May 2016 at 15:29, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 05/09/2016 01:37 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: >>> Hi, After this merge, I'm seeing lots of timeouts on arm (using QEMU). Is

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-10 Thread Christophe Lyon
On 9 May 2016 at 15:34, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 15:29, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 05/09/2016 01:37 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> After this merge, I'm seeing lots of timeouts on arm (using QEMU). >>> Is this "expected"? (as in: should I increase my timeout value) >> >

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-09 Thread Christophe Lyon
On 9 May 2016 at 15:29, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/09/2016 01:37 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> After this merge, I'm seeing lots of timeouts on arm (using QEMU). >> Is this "expected"? (as in: should I increase my timeout value) > > I wouldn't say it's expected; this is the first time Cil

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-09 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/09/2016 01:37 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi, After this merge, I'm seeing lots of timeouts on arm (using QEMU). Is this "expected"? (as in: should I increase my timeout value) I wouldn't say it's expected; this is the first time Cilk+ has been supported on ARM. It could be a bug in the

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-09 Thread Matthias Klose
On 07.05.2016 16:35, Matthias Klose wrote: On 02.05.2016 17:51, Jeff Law wrote: On 04/29/2016 05:36 AM, Ilya Verbin wrote: Hi! This patch brings the latest libcilkrts from upstream. Regtested on i686-linux and x86_64-linux. Abidiff: Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 1 Changed (16 filtered

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-09 Thread Christophe Lyon
On 2 May 2016 at 17:51, Jeff Law wrote: > On 04/29/2016 05:36 AM, Ilya Verbin wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> This patch brings the latest libcilkrts from upstream. >> Regtested on i686-linux and x86_64-linux. >> >> Abidiff: >> Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 1 Changed (16 filtered out), 2 Added >> f

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-07 Thread Matthias Klose
On 02.05.2016 17:51, Jeff Law wrote: On 04/29/2016 05:36 AM, Ilya Verbin wrote: Hi! This patch brings the latest libcilkrts from upstream. Regtested on i686-linux and x86_64-linux. Abidiff: Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 1 Changed (16 filtered out), 2 Added functions Variables changes s

Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Merge libcilkrts from upstream

2016-05-02 Thread Jeff Law
On 04/29/2016 05:36 AM, Ilya Verbin wrote: Hi! This patch brings the latest libcilkrts from upstream. Regtested on i686-linux and x86_64-linux. Abidiff: Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 1 Changed (16 filtered out), 2 Added functions Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed (1 filte