Ping.
On 20 December 2013 20:46, Michael V. Zolotukhin
wrote:
>> This patch seems to make rather too many assumptions about host and
>> target compilers. Certainly code like this can't go into
>> target-independent code like lto-wrapper.
> That's true. The point of this patch was to show what is
> This patch seems to make rather too many assumptions about host and
> target compilers. Certainly code like this can't go into
> target-independent code like lto-wrapper.
That's true. The point of this patch was to show what is needed to support
x86->MIC OpenMP offloading, as we currently see it
On 12/17/2013 12:42 PM, Michael V. Zolotukhin wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> Here is a patch 3/3: Add invocation of target compiler.
> + /* Run objcopy on TARGET_IMAGE_FILE_NAME. */
> + buf1 = (char*) xmalloc (strlen (".data=.")
> + + strlen (OFFLOAD_IMAGE_SECTION_NAME) + 1);
Hi everybody,
Here is a patch 3/3: Add invocation of target compiler.
With this patch lto-wrapper performs invocation of target compilers and embeds
the resultant target images into the host binary. The targets and the
corresponding compilers are supposed to be specified in a special environment
