Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ilya Verbin wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 01:48:21 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > On 09 Dec 14:59, Richard Biener wrote: > > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, this fix was not general enough. > > > > There might be cases when mixed object files

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 01:48:21 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote: > On 09 Dec 14:59, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > > Unfortunately, this fix was not general enough. > > > There might be cases when mixed object files get into lto-wrapper, ie > > > some of > > > them

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

Hi! I clarified the -foffload usage: . On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:23:50 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 09/22/2015 02:02 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > gcc/ > > * gcc.c (handle_foffload_option): Don't lose

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On 09/22/2015 02:02 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: gcc/ * gcc.c (handle_foffload_option): Don't lose the trailing NUL character when appending to offload_targets. gcc/ * configure.ac (offload_targets, OFFLOAD_TARGETS): Separate offload targets by comm

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

Hi! On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:41:59 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote: > 2015-09-21 18:15 GMT+03:00 Thomas Schwinge : > > (, "--foffload* undocumented", has recently > > been filed.) > > > > (In the following, "intelmic" is short for > > "x86_64-intelmicemul-linux-gnu", and "nvpt

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

2015-09-21 18:15 GMT+03:00 Thomas Schwinge : > (, "--foffload* undocumented", has recently > been filed.) > > (In the following, "intelmic" is short for > "x86_64-intelmicemul-linux-gnu", and "nvptx" is short for "nvptx-none".) > > What is the syntax to use for building

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

Hi! On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:49:00 +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > This is the last common infrastructure patch in the series. > 1. -foffload== >By default, GCC will build offload images for all offload targets specified > in configure, with non-target-specific options passed to host compiler. > T

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On July 14, 2015 10:03:32 PM GMT+02:00, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >Hi! > >OK for gcc-5-branch? OK Richard >On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:26:06 +0200, I wrote: >> Committed in r222583: >> >> commit df615909263269988fd9611f8d007902580829d9 >> Author: tschwinge >> Date: Wed Apr 29 16:23:26 2015 + >

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

Hi! OK for gcc-5-branch? On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:26:06 +0200, I wrote: > Committed in r222583: > > commit df615909263269988fd9611f8d007902580829d9 > Author: tschwinge > Date: Wed Apr 29 16:23:26 2015 + > > [PR libgomp/65099] nvptx mkoffload: pass "-m32" or "-m64" to the compiler >

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

Hi! On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:24:08 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/27/2015 06:08 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > >>> OK to do the following instead? (Coding style/code copied from > >>> gcc/config/i386/intelmic-mkoffload.c for consistency.) > > Err, was this a question for me? I'm fine with

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On 04/27/2015 06:08 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: OK to do the following instead? (Coding style/code copied from gcc/config/i386/intelmic-mkoffload.c for consistency.) Err, was this a question for me? I'm fine with that too. Bernd

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

Hi! Ping. On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:37:47 +0100, I wrote: > Ping. > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:39:52 +0100, I wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:04:21 +0100, I wrote: > > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:33:11 +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > > > On 13 Oct 12:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

Hi! Ping. On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:39:52 +0100, I wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:04:21 +0100, I wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:33:11 +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > > On 13 Oct 12:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 06:49:00PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > > > > 2. -foffload

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

Hi! On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:04:21 +0100, I wrote: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:33:11 +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > On 13 Oct 12:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 06:49:00PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > > > 2. -foffload-abi=[lp64|ilp32] > > > >This option is supposed to tell m

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

Hi! On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:33:11 +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > On 13 Oct 12:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 06:49:00PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > > 2. -foffload-abi=[lp64|ilp32] > > >This option is supposed to tell mkoffload (and offload compiler) which > > > ABI is > >

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On 09 Dec 14:59, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > Unfortunately, this fix was not general enough. > > There might be cases when mixed object files get into lto-wrapper, ie some > > of > > them contain only LTO sections, some contain only offload sections, and some

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Ilya Verbin wrote: > Hi, > > On 28 Nov 09:36, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > > I found a bug here, have_{lto,offload} must be set if at least one file > > > contains > > > lto/offload sections, but currently they are overwritten by the l

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

Hi, On 28 Nov 09:36, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > I found a bug here, have_{lto,offload} must be set if at least one file > > contains > > lto/offload sections, but currently they are overwritten by the last file. > > Fix is bootstrapped and regtested on x86

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Ilya Verbin wrote: > On 11 Oct 18:49, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > (run_gcc): Outline options handling into the new functions: > > find_and_merge_options, append_compiler_options, append_linker_options. > > ... > > @@ -625,18 +893,13 @@ run_gcc (unsigned argc, char *argv[])

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On 11 Oct 18:49, Ilya Verbin wrote: > (run_gcc): Outline options handling into the new functions: > find_and_merge_options, append_compiler_options, append_linker_options. > ... > @@ -625,18 +893,13 @@ run_gcc (unsigned argc, char *argv[]) >/* Look at saved options in the IL files.

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On 24 Oct 20:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:29:50PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > diff --git a/gcc/opts.c b/gcc/opts.c > > index 9b2e1af..d1a626c 100644 > > --- a/gcc/opts.c > > +++ b/gcc/opts.c > > @@ -1732,6 +1732,13 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options *opts, > >

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On 10/15/2014 03:52 PM, Richard Biener wrote: I'd say that we eventually should have a type flag that says "this is a va-list type". If we really need to know that - because I don't understand why we need to do this - the context should tell us exactly whether we deal with a va_list object or n

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On 13 Oct 12:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 06:49:00PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > It introduces 2 new options: > > 1. -foffload== > >By default, GCC will build offload images for all offload targets > > specified > > in configure, with non-target-specific options passed

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:29:50PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > diff --git a/gcc/opts.c b/gcc/opts.c > index 9b2e1af..d1a626c 100644 > --- a/gcc/opts.c > +++ b/gcc/opts.c > @@ -1732,6 +1732,13 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options *opts, >/* Deferred. */ >break; > > +#ifndef

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/14/2014 09:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> >>> On 10/13/2014 12:33 PM, Ilya Verbin wrote: On 13 Oct 12:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > But I'd like to understand why is this

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On 10/14/2014 09:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 10/13/2014 12:33 PM, Ilya Verbin wrote: On 13 Oct 12:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: But I'd like to understand why is this one needed. Why should the compilers care? Aggregates layout and alignment of integr

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/13/2014 12:33 PM, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > On 13 Oct 12:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > But I'd like to understand why is this one needed. > > > Why should the compilers care? Aggregates layout and alignment of > > > integral/floating types must matc

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On 10/13/2014 12:33 PM, Ilya Verbin wrote: On 13 Oct 12:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: But I'd like to understand why is this one needed. Why should the compilers care? Aggregates layout and alignment of integral/floating types must match between host and offload compilers, sure, but isn't that somet

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On 13 Oct 12:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > But I'd like to understand why is this one needed. > Why should the compilers care? Aggregates layout and alignment of > integral/floating types must match between host and offload compilers, sure, > but isn't that something streamed already in the LTO bytec

Re: [PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 06:49:00PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > This is the last common infrastructure patch in the series. > (Next patches will contain tests for libgomp testsuite and MIC specific > things) > > It introduces 2 new options: > 1. -foffload== >By default, GCC will build offload

[PATCH 6/n] OpenMP 4.0 offloading infrastructure: option handling

Hello, This is the last common infrastructure patch in the series. (Next patches will contain tests for libgomp testsuite and MIC specific things) It introduces 2 new options: 1. -foffload== By default, GCC will build offload images for all offload targets specified in configure, with non-targ