Hi!
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:34:22 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Your use_device sounds very similar to use_device_ptr clause in OpenMP,
> which is allowed on #pragma omp target data construct and is implemented
> quite a bit differently from this; it is unclear if the OpenACC standard
> requires t
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:33:39PM +, Julian Brown wrote:
> Firstly, on trunk at least, use_device_ptr variables are restricted to
> pointer or array types: that restriction doesn't exist in OpenACC, nor
> actually could I find it in the OpenMP 4.1 document (my guess is the
> standards are supp
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:33:39PM +, Julian Brown wrote:
> As the author of the original patch, I have to say using the mapping
> structures seems like a far better approach, but I've hit some trouble
> with the details of adapting OpenACC to use that method.
>
> Firstly, on trunk at least, u
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:34:22 +0100
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Your use_device sounds very similar to use_device_ptr clause in
> OpenMP, which is allowed on #pragma omp target data construct and is
> implemented quite a bit differently from this; it is unclear if the
> OpenACC standard requires this k
On 10/26/2015 11:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:51:42AM -0500, James Norris wrote:
>> @@ -12942,6 +12961,7 @@ c_finish_omp_clauses (tree clauses, bool is_omp,
>> bool declare_simd)
>> case OMP_CLAUSE_GANG:
>> case OMP_CLAUSE_WORKER:
>> case OMP_CLAUSE_VECTO
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:51:42AM -0500, James Norris wrote:
> @@ -12942,6 +12961,7 @@ c_finish_omp_clauses (tree clauses, bool is_omp, bool
> declare_simd)
> case OMP_CLAUSE_GANG:
> case OMP_CLAUSE_WORKER:
> case OMP_CLAUSE_VECTOR:
> + case OMP_CLAUSE_USE_DEVICE:
>
Hi,
This a re-posting of the original note incorporating the suggestions
from Joseph and Nathan (thank you).
This patch adds the processing of OpenACC host_data construct in C
and C++. (Note: Support in Fortran is already in trunk.) The patch
also adds the required support in the mid
