nu.og
> Subject: RE: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 6:55 AM
> > To: Iyer, Balaji V
> > Cc: gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.og
> > S
ez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
> 'r...@redhat.com'
> Subject: RE: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
>
> Hi Jakub,
> Please see my responses below.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Iyer, Balaji V
> > Sent: Thursday, F
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:43:06AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Attached, please find a patch with the test case attached (for1.cc). The
> patch is the same but the cp-changelog has been modified to reflect the
> new test-case. Is this OK to install?
1) have you tested the patch at all? I see
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:10 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
> 'r...@
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 05:04:38PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> I looked at the test code you send me (cf3.cc) at -O1 and it is removing
> all the lines you have shown above. Yes, I would imagine -O0 to have code
> that can be redundant or unnecessary. Some of it could be the artifact of
> inte
> > > More importantly, what is retval.1? I'd expect you should be using
> > > retval.0 there and have it also as firstprivate(retval.0) on the parallel.
> > > In *.omplower dump I actually see:
> > > retval.0 = operator- (D.2885, &i); ...
> > > retval.1 = opera
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:14:23PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > The testcase is GPL as the original libgomp.c++/for-1.C testcase, so sure.
> > Perhaps it would be much better though if instead of having a compile time
> > testcase you'd just do what libgomp.c++/for-1.C does, just replace all th
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:59 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
> 'r...@
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:07:18PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> I looked at both but forgot to test them with my implementation. Sorry
> about this. I have fixed the ICE issue. To make sure this does not
> happen further, I have added your test cf3.C into test suite (renamed to
> cf3.cc). I ho
nandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
> 'r...@redhat.com'
> Subject: RE: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
>
> Hi Jakub,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 12:58
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:14:21PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Attached, please find a fixed patch. Along with it, I have also
> added 2 changelog files for C and C++ respectively.
Have you even looked at the second testcase I've posted?
gimplification ICEs on it with your latest patch, b
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:33:41PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > So, the issues I see:
> > 1) what is iter.1, why do you have it at all, and, after all, the iterator
> > is a class
> > that needs to be constructed/destructed in the general way, so creating any
> > further copies of something is
;; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
> 'r...@redhat.com'
> Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
>
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:27:26AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > Attached, please find a fixed patch (diff.txt) that will do as you
> re
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:27:26AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Attached, please find a fixed patch (diff.txt) that will do as you
> requested (model _Cilk_for like a #pragma omp parallel for). Along with this,
> I have also attached two Changelog entries (1 for C and 1 for C++).
>
es@gcc.gnu.org';
> 'r...@redhat.com'
> Subject: RE: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
>
> Hi Jakub,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:31 AM
> > To:
Hi Jakub,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:31 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
> '
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:55:38PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> I thought about it a bit more, and the main issue here is that we
> need access to the _Cilk_for loop's components both inside the child
> function and the parent function.
I guess for the C++ iterators, if in the _Cilk_for mo
> -Original Message-
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 4:36 PM
> To: Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: Jason Merrill; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
> 'r...@redhat.com'
> Subject: RE: [PING]
cc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
> 'r...@redhat.com'
> Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:41:14PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > Did you get a chance to look at this _Cilk_for patch?
>
> IMHO it is not as much work
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:41:14PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Did you get a chance to look at this _Cilk_for patch?
IMHO it is not as much work as you are fearing, at most a few hours of work
to get it right, and well worth doing. So, please at least try it out
and if you get stuck wit
Hi Jakub et al.,
Did you get a chance to look at this _Cilk_for patch?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 3:34 PM
> To: Jakub J
21 matches
Mail list logo
