> Everything except _Cilk_for should be supported.
Imagine you're a new cilk user. For you it's totally obvious
what "everything" is. But someone new to it they won't it
know anything about "everything". So you have to tell them.
-Andi
Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
1.2 is 1.1 ABI with the language spec reformatted. No new features has
been added in between 1.1 and 1.2. So, you can say either one.
Or should we simply remove the ABI version completely? I have attached
such a patch
I would put the ABI version, since the Cilk users will
> -Original Message-
> From: Andi Kleen [mailto:a...@firstfloor.org]
> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:38 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Andi Kleen; Tobias Burnus; Gerald Pfeifer; gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC
> _Cilk_spawn is the correct keyword. "cilk_spawn" can be used if the user
> includes which has the following 3 lines (and that's the whole
> file)
>
> #define cilk_spawn _Cilk_spawn
> #define cilk_sync _Cilk_sync
> #define cilk_for _Cilk_for
>
>
> In Cilk there are basically 3 keywords: _Cil
> -Original Message-
> From: Tobias Burnus [mailto:bur...@net-b.de]
> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:32 PM
> To: Andi Kleen; Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Gerald Pfeifer; gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 09:22:54PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >It would be also good if the documentation mentioned that you have
> >to specify -lcilkrts
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to automatically add the option? For
> instance like the following? Or do we need to do t
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> OK for the trunk / the webserver?
Okay. Go for the previous version with the ABI reference based
on what Iyer wrote.
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> 1.2 is 1.1 ABI with the language spec reformatted. No new features
> has been added in betw
Am 08.03.2014 21:13, schrieb Andi Kleen:
Also it would be good to specify exactly what parts of Cilk are
supported currently. It's some what hard to figure out.
My understanding is that everything but cilk_for is supported.
One trap I ran into (perhaps naively) is that I tried to use
cilk_spa
> -Original Message-
> From: Tobias Burnus [mailto:bur...@net-b.de]
> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:06 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; Gerald Pfeifer
> Cc: gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
>
wwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
>
> Andi Kleen writes:
>
> > "Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
> >>
> >> The sentence "Current only..." should be changed to something like this:
> >>
> >> Currently
Andi Kleen wrote:
It would be also good if the documentation mentioned that you have to
specify -lcilkrts
Wouldn't it make more sense to automatically add the option? For
instance like the following? Or do we need to do the same as for libgomp
and create a .spec file?
Tobias
--- a/gcc/gcc
Andi Kleen writes:
> "Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
>>
>> The sentence "Current only..." should be changed to something like this:
>>
>> Currently all the features except _Cilk_for has been implemented.
>
> It would be also good if the documentation mentioned that you have to
> specify -lcilkrts
Also
Tobias Burnus wrote:
Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Thank you for catching this. Yes, it should be ABI 1.1
Actually, shouldn't this ABI 1.2? On http://www.cilkplus.org/ - one
finds the statement: "The new specification (version 1.2) contains
numerous corrections and clarifications. No new features w
"Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
>
> The sentence "Current only..." should be changed to something like this:
>
> Currently all the features except _Cilk_for has been implemented.
It would be also good if the documentation mentioned that you have to
specify -lcilkrts
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- S
Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Thank you for catching this. Yes, it should be ABI 1.1
...
The sentence "Current only..." should be changed to something like
this: Currently all the features except _Cilk_for has been implemented.
How about the following patch to changes.html - and to doc/invoke.texi?
C - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
>
> Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > Cilk Plus supports both task and data parallelism and Cilk Plus and
> > thus far all features except _Cilk_for is supported in 4.9. I am not
> > sure what ABI you are referring to but Cilk Plus fo
Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Cilk Plus supports both task and data parallelism and Cilk Plus and
thus far all features except _Cilk_for is supported in 4.9. I am not
sure what ABI you are referring to but Cilk Plus follows Cilk ABI 1.1.
Well, I am referring to the following in gcc/doc/invoke.texi. Fr
> -Original Message-
> From: Gerald Pfeifer [mailto:ger...@pfeifer.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 1:29 PM
> To: Tobias Burnus
> Cc: gcc-patches; Iyer, Balaji V; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
>
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> the attached patch mentions the support of Cilk Plus in GCC 4.9 in the
> release notes, http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html
>
> Is the patch OK?
"Plus is an extension...", should this read "Cilk Plus is an extension?"
If so, I suggest to switch the
Hi all,
the attached patch mentions the support of Cilk Plus in GCC 4.9 in the
release notes, http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html
Is the patch OK?
Tobias
PS: Is it correct that the current implementation only supports ABI 0.9
of Oct 2010 and not ABI 1.1 of Jul 2011? (Current is 1.2 of S
20 matches
Mail list logo
