On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> I think David is getting the correct output but just that dg-error is not
> catching it correctly.
What version of expect are you using?
Fedora 18 apparently has 5.45, others are using 5.44, and AIX 7.1
provides 5.42.1.
Thanks, David
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> I think David is getting the correct output but just that dg-error is not
> catching it correctly.
Is there an updated Tcl or runtest pre-req?
- David
ednesday, May 29, 2013 11:44 AM
> >> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> >> Cc: Richard Henderson; Jakub Jelinek; Aldy Hernandez; Jeff Law; 'Joseph S.
> >> Myers'; gcc-patches
> >> Subject: RE: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
> >>
> >
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 03:02:27PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>error: __sec_reduce_min_ind or __sec_reduce_max_ind cannot have arrays
> >>with dimension greater than 1
> >
> >Same as above for this also.
> Not sure about this one. It's possible (I'd have to sit down with
> dg.exp for a while) that
; 'Joseph S.
Myers'; gcc-patches
Subject: RE: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
Balaji,
Thanks for this new feature and I am relieved that so much of it works
successfully on PowerLinux and AIX.
I know that you have received a deluge of reports of issues with the cilkpl
gt; Myers'; gcc-patches
> Subject: RE: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> Balaji,
>
> Thanks for this new feature and I am relieved that so much of it works
> successfully on PowerLinux and AIX.
>
> I know that you have received a deluge of reports o
enderson
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:52 PM
>>> To: Iyer, Balaji V
>>> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Aldy Hernandez; Jeff Law; 'Joseph S. Myers';
>>> 'gcc-patches'
>>> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
Balaji,
Thanks for this new feature and I am relieved that so much of it works
successfully on PowerLinux and AIX.
I know that you have received a deluge of reports of issues with the
cilkplus support that you slowly are working through. I am seeing the
following new testsuite failures on AIX:
Rainer Orth writes:
> "Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
[...]
>> This patch is committed to trunk at revision 199389.
>
> ... and immediately broke Solaris bootstrap, cf. PR bootstrap/57450.
Fixed implementing Richard's suggestion from the PR. Bootstrapped
without regressions on i386-pc-solaris2.10 and
ek; Aldy Hernandez; Jeff Law; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'gcc-patches'
>> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>>
>> On 05/28/2013 11:44 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>> > i Richard, Jakub et al..
>> >I think I have fixe
> -Original Message-
> From: H.J. Lu [mailto:hjl.to...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:48 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Richard Henderson; Jakub Jelinek; Aldy Hernandez; Jeff Law; Joseph S.
> Myers; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus:
enderson
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:52 PM
>>> To: Iyer, Balaji V
>>> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Aldy Hernandez; Jeff Law; 'Joseph S. Myers';
>>> 'gcc-patches'
>>> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
Balaji V
>> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Aldy Hernandez; Jeff Law; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'gcc-patches'
>> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>>
>> On 05/28/2013 11:44 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>> > i Richard, Jakub et al..
>> &g
'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On 05/28/2013 11:44 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > i Richard, Jakub et al..
> > I think I have fixed everything requested by RTH
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05
On 05/28/2013 11:44 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> i Richard, Jakub et al..
> I think I have fixed everything requested by RTH
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg01400.html). I think I have
> also moved the tests in the correct place Jakub requested. It is passing all
> the corr
w; r...@redhat.com; 'Joseph S. Myers';
> 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:37:32AM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > I moved all the tests from gcc.dg/cilk-plus/AN directory to c
On 05/28/13 11:49, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
At present, I did not have a g++.dg/cilk-plus/cilk-plus.exp script,
thus C++ compiler does not execute these tests.
Ah, I see. Perfect.
akub Jelinek; Jeff Law; r...@redhat.com; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On 05/24/13 13:43, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>
> > Hi Jakub,
> > I moved all the tests from gcc.dg/cilk-pl
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:37:32AM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > I moved all the tests from gcc.dg/cilk-plus/AN directory to
> > c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN directory. The gcc.dg/cilk-plus directory just
> > contains cilk-plus.exp script, which will handle all the tests in
> > cilk-plus, no
On 05/24/13 13:43, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hi Jakub,
I moved all the tests from gcc.dg/cilk-plus/AN directory to
c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN directory. The gcc.dg/cilk-plus directory just
contains cilk-plus.exp script, which will handle all the tests in cilk-plus,
not just array notation
gt; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 05:52:11PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/AN/array_test1.c: New test.
> ...
> > * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/AN/cilkplus_AN_c.exp: N
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 05:52:11PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/AN/array_test1.c: New test.
...
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/AN/cilkplus_AN_c.exp: New script.
Ok, I guess I can live with /AN/ extra level, but can you please
move it still to c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/ for a
ez
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:23 PM
> To: Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; Richard Henderson; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On 05/23/13 14:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On 05/23/2013 06:42 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> >
> > I got all your responses and, if I remove the compile, execute and
> > errors directories but keep cilk-plus and array notati
On 05/23/2013 06:42 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
I got all your responses and, if I remove the compile, execute and
errors directories but keep cilk-plus and array notation, maybe even
abbreviate array notation to "an", (in future cilk keywords to "ck",
pragma simd to "ps" and elemental function t
nderson; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On 05/23/13 14:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:27:04PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
On May 23, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "Iyer, Balaji V" wrote:
> If I put things in c-c++-common, how do I test the code with different flags
> (I didn't see any .exp file there)? For example, how can I test if it works
> with "-O2" and then have another test for "-O2 -g" etc.? Do I just use
> multiple "
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:52 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Richard Henderson; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez';
> 'gcc-
> patches'
> Subject
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 03:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> >
> > Regarding commonality between OpenMP and Cilk, note also the new C
> > Parallel Language Extensions WG14 study group chaired by Clark Nelson and
> > aiming to propose a standard set of C extensions for p
On 05/23/2013 02:38 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hi Jakub & Aldy, There are a couple reasons why I picked this
hierarchy. I looked at gcc-c-torture directory and it has compile,
execute etc. This is why I had execute, compile and errors directory.
Also, we are planning to have some hybrid tests tha
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:04 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Richard Henderson; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch]
On 05/23/2013 11:27 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hello Richard et al.,
> Attached, please find a fixed patch. I have done the following changes:
>
> 1. Used the c_finish_loop (...) function instead of building the loop myself
> 2. Got rid of ARRAY_NOTATION_TYPE and just used TREE_TYPE ().
>
On 05/23/13 14:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:27:04PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2013-05-23 Balaji V. Iyer
* gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/array_test2.c: New test.
I have concerns about the test locations, to me this looks w
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:27:04PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> 2013-05-23 Balaji V. Iyer
>
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/array_test2.c: New test.
I have concerns about the test locations, to me this looks way too deep
tree, whether something i
--
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:34 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:11 PM
> To: Joseph S. Myers
> Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; Jakub Jelinek; Richard Henderson; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-
> patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [pa
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:11 PM
> To: Joseph S. Myers
> Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; Jakub Jelinek; Richard Henderson; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-
> patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [pa
On 05/22/2013 03:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Regarding commonality between OpenMP and Cilk, note also the new C
Parallel Language Extensions WG14 study group chaired by Clark Nelson and
aiming to propose a standard set of C extensions for parallel programming,
announced yesterday on the WG14 r
cc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On 05/22/2013 02:25 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > Yes, they are both the same. A while back, I found a couple corner
> > cases where the TREE_TYPE of the array notations inside __sec_reduce
&g
On 05/22/2013 02:25 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Yes, they are both the same. A while back, I found a couple corner cases
> where the TREE_TYPE of the array notations inside __sec_reduce functions
> that was getting changed. This is a storage location that will be untouched
> so that I can get the o
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
> So if we can represent array notation as an OpenMP SIMD loop and re-use the
> OpenMP code generation, that's a significant win. I realize the OpenMP SIMD
> stuff is still in-progress, but from a design standpoint we'd like to separate
> out the front-end iss
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:34 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Arr
On 05/22/2013 01:13 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hi Jeff, Yes, converting the array notation expansion to #pragma simd
(or #pragma omp simd) trees will be beneficial performance wise. But,
it will require semi-significant re-write and this can destabilize a
currently stable implementation. IMHO, fo
dy Hernandez';
> 'gcc-
> patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On 05/22/2013 09:37 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> >>>
> >> Furthermore, do you want to generate just normal loop out of it, or
> >> shouldn
On 2013-05-22 08:18, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
The overall function names are same, but the components inside it function
differs greatly from C and C++. For example, in C++ I can't use
build_modify_expr, but build_x_modify_expr. Also, I need to handle
overloaded function types, and that requires fur
On 05/22/2013 09:37 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Furthermore, do you want to generate just normal loop out of it, or
shouldn't we generate a #pragma omp simd loop out of it instead?
Haven't read the spec if array notation guarantees lack of
forward/backward loop dependencies and what are the restr
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:30 AM
> To: Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] c
ndez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 07:57:10PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > >+ /* This will create the if statement label. */
> > &g
On 2013-05-21 23:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Furthermore, do you want to generate just normal loop out of it, or
shouldn't we generate a #pragma omp simd loop out of it instead?
Haven't read the spec if array notation guarantees lack of forward/backward
loop dependencies and what are the restriction
rs'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> Let me start by saying that I think the patch is generally ok, especially
> considering the advice that's already been given. That said...
>
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 07:57:10PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >+ /* This will create the if statement label. */
> >+ if_stmt_label[ii] = build_decl (location, LABEL_DECL, NULL_TREE,
> >+ void_type_node);
> >+ DECL_CONTEXT (if_stmt_label[ii]
Let me start by saying that I think the patch is generally ok, especially
considering the advice that's already been given. That said...
+++ b/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c
@@ -0,0 +1,3121 @@
So, like, are we going to need to replicate 3000 lines to add array notation to
c++ too? How much of th
Can someone please review this patch for us?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
> -Original Message-
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:32 AM
> To: Joseph S. Myers
> Cc: 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: RE: [patch] cilkplus: Ar
On 30 April 2013 00:55:16 "Joseph S. Myers" wrote:
> + if (flag_enable_cilkplus && contains_array_notation_expr (cond))
> +{
> + error_at (start_locus, "array notation expression cannot be used
in a "
> + "loop%'s condition");
> + return;
> +}
> + if (flag_enable_
Here's a review of the changes to the compiler proper in this patch.
I don't think much more will come up from reviews of the compiler
changes - but I still need to review the testsuite changes against the
language specification to make sure that everything is properly
covered in the testsuite (whi
9, 2013 5:58 PM
> > To: 'Joseph Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'
> > Cc: 'gcc-patches'
> > Subject: RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
> >
> > Hello Joseph, Aldy et al.,
> > I reworded couple comments (e.g chang
Hello Joseph,
Did you get a chance to look at this patch?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
> -Original Message-
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 5:58 PM
> To: 'Joseph Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'
> Cc: 'gcc-patches'
> Sub
We need to do EXPR_LOCATION (array2) and then issue the error
note: original mismatching rank at:
array[:][:] = array2[:];
>>^
Yes.
Or something similar... the note can be emitted with inform(). So you need to
save the original rank location to emit the note.
..
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Aldy Hernandez
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 5:02 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'Joseph Myers'; 'gcc-patches'
> Subject: Re: [pa
On 03/29/13 16:57, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
+bool
+find_rank (location_t loc, tree orig_expr, tree array, bool ignore_builtin_fn,
+ size_t *rank)
+{
+ tree ii_tree;
Balaji, I believe what Joseph meant with saving the location_t is so we
can give meaningful error messages when encounter
On 03/29/13 16:57, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Joseph, Aldy et al.,
I reworded couple comments (e.g changed builtin with built-in, etc) and
added a header comment to the c-array-notation.c that explains the overall
process. I am attaching a fixed patch.
Ok, this latest patch that Bal
* c-tree.h (is_cilkplus_reduce_builtin): Protoize.
> -Original Message-
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:07 PM
> To: Joseph Myers; Aldy Hernandez
> Cc: gcc-patches
> Subject: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
>
> Hello Joseph, Ald
Hello Joseph, Aldy et al.,
Attached, please find a fixed patch (bzipped) that implements array
notation for C. To my best knowledge, I have fixed all the changes Joseph and
Aldy have mentioned in the previous email threads
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg01182.html,
http:/
63 matches
Mail list logo
