ent for hacking on this on gomp-4_0-branch, but
it would be nice to clean it up before merging to trunk.
> Committing to omp4 branch.
Thanks.
Jakub
On 11/04/13 08:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 08:19:12AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi.
While looking over some of your testcases I noticed that array
subscripts are not being properly adjusted:
foo(int i) {
array[i] =
}
The `i' should use the simd array magic
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 08:19:12AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi.
>
> While looking over some of your testcases I noticed that array
> subscripts are not being properly adjusted:
>
> foo(int i) {
> array[i] =
> }
>
> The `i' should use the simd array magic instead of ICEing :).
>
On 11/04/13 08:19, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi.
While looking over some of your testcases I noticed that array
subscripts are not being properly adjusted:
foo(int i) {
array[i] =
}
The `i' should use the simd array magic instead of ICEing :).
Is the attached patch OK for the branch?
A
Hi.
While looking over some of your testcases I noticed that array
subscripts are not being properly adjusted:
foo(int i) {
array[i] =
}
The `i' should use the simd array magic instead of ICEing :).
Is the attached patch OK for the branch?
Aldy
gcc/ChangeLog.gomp
* omp
On 09/27/13 09:23, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:31:33PM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+/* Create a simd clone of OLD_NODE and return it. */
+
+static struct cgraph_node *
+simd_clone_create (struct cgraph_node *old_node)
+{
+ struct cgraph_node *new_node;
+ new_node = cgra
On 09/27/13 09:23, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:31:33PM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -42806,6 +42806,43 @@ ix86_memmodel_check (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT val)
return val;
}
+/* Return the default vector mangling
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:31:33PM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> @@ -42806,6 +42806,43 @@ ix86_memmodel_check (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT val)
>return val;
> }
>
> +/* Return the default vector mangling ISA code when none is specifie
On 09/27/13 03:18, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+ /* To distinguish from an OpenMP simd clone, Cilk Plus functions to
+ be cloned have a distinctive artificial label in addition to "omp
+ declare simd". */
+ bool cilk_clone = flag_enabl
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> + /* To distinguish from an OpenMP simd clone, Cilk Plus functions to
>> + be cloned have a distinctive artificial label in addition to "omp
>> + declare simd". */
>> + bool cilk_clone = flag_enable_cilkplus
>> +&& lookup_att
+ /* To distinguish from an OpenMP simd clone, Cilk Plus functions to
+ be cloned have a distinctive artificial label in addition to "omp
+ declare simd". */
+ bool cilk_clone = flag_enable_cilkplus
+&& lookup_attribute ("cilk plus elemental",
+DECL_ATTRIBUTE
Hi folks.
Both OMP4 and Cilk Plus provide mechanisms for simd function cloning.
In OMP4 it's "#pragma omp declare simd" and in Cilk Plus they are
"elemental functions" (or "simd-enabled functions" in their Intel's
latest nomenclature). For lack of a
On 06/26/13 10:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:44:03AM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
This is a followup for the C++ changes (your pt.c suggested changes, etc).
Only a few minor changes are needed, since c_finish_cilk_simd_loop()
is shared between C/C++ and it creates the appr
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:44:03AM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> This is a followup for the C++ changes (your pt.c suggested changes, etc).
>
> Only a few minor changes are needed, since c_finish_cilk_simd_loop()
> is shared between C/C++ and it creates the appropriate CILK_SIMD
> tree node.
>
>
This is a followup for the C++ changes (your pt.c suggested changes, etc).
Only a few minor changes are needed, since c_finish_cilk_simd_loop() is
shared between C/C++ and it creates the appropriate CILK_SIMD tree node.
Is this what you had in mind?
commit db2127098137dea6c246041e0d763a57a174f
case NE_EXPR:
- if (!flag_enable_cilk)
+ /* NE_EXPR is only allowed for Cilk Plus loops. */
+ if (flag_enable_cilk
Very weird name of a flag. Should have been flag_cilk or flag_cilkplus
IMHO.
I know. It was already there from Balaji's first iteration with a
> case NE_EXPR:
> - if (!flag_enable_cilk)
> + /* NE_EXPR is only allowed for Cilk Plus loops. */
> + if (flag_enable_cilk
> + && gimple_omp_for_kind (for_stmt) == GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_CILKSIMD)
> + break;
> + else
> gcc_unreachable ();
> -
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 07:16:56AM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> I have done as suggested, and cleaned things up along the way.
>
> I believe this is the last remaining TODO on my Cilk Plus pragma
> simd list. Everything else is dependent on OMP4.
>
> Is this what you had
things up along the way.
I believe this is the last remaining TODO on my Cilk Plus pragma simd
list. Everything else is dependent on OMP4.
Is this what you had in mind?
If you'd like, I can submit the OMP changes separately so we can put
them on the OMP4 branch. However, my plan is to s
Hi Jakub.
In contrast to OMP4+, Cilk Plus allows a "!=" in the condition to a simd
for loop (we are guaranteed no unsigned wrap around).
I'm not totally happy with the cleanliness of this patch, but the
alternative seems a lot more convoluted. Type checking before hand,
s
20 matches
Mail list logo
