On 10/21/15 13:16, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 10/21/15 16:14, Ilya Verbin wrote:
<11-trunk-tests.patch>
Does the testcase with offload IR appear here accidentally?
D'oh! yup, fixed.
Now all applied, Thanks for everybody's help.
nathan
On 10/23/2015 01:29 PM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> On 10/22/2015 08:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 07:47:01AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
But it is unclear from the parsing what from these is allowed:
>>>
>>> int v, w;
>>> ...
>>> gang(26) // equivalent to gang(num
On 10/22/2015 08:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 07:47:01AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>>> But it is unclear from the parsing what from these is allowed:
>>
>> int v, w;
>> ...
>> gang(26) // equivalent to gang(num:26)
>> gang(v) // gang(num:v)
>> vector(length: 16) /
On 10/22/2015 08:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 07:47:01AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>>> But it is unclear from the parsing what from these is allowed:
>>
>> int v, w;
>> ...
>> gang(26) // equivalent to gang(num:26)
>> gang(v) // gang(num:v)
>> vector(length: 16) /
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 07:47:01AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> > But it is unclear from the parsing what from these is allowed:
>
> int v, w;
> ...
> gang(26) // equivalent to gang(num:26)
> gang(v) // gang(num:v)
> vector(length: 16) // vector(length: 16)
> vector(length: v) // vector(
On 10/22/15 10:47, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
Interesting question. The spec is unclear. It defines gang, worker and
vector as follows in section 2.7 in the OpenACC 2.0a spec:
gang [( gang-arg-list )]
worker [( [num:] int-expr )]
vector [( [length:] int-expr )]
where gang-arg is one of:
On 10/22/2015 07:23 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/22/15 10:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:53:46AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>> On 10/22/15 05:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
And, I must say I'm at least missing testcases that check parsing
but also
runtim
On 10/22/15 10:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:53:46AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 10/22/15 05:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
And, I must say I'm at least missing testcases that check parsing but also
runtime behavior of the vector or worker clause arguments (there
is one gan
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:53:46AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/22/15 05:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >And, I must say I'm at least missing testcases that check parsing but also
> >runtime behavior of the vector or worker clause arguments (there
> >is one gang (static:1) clause, but not th
On 10/22/15 05:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
And, I must say I'm at least missing testcases that check parsing but also
runtime behavior of the vector or worker clause arguments (there
is one gang (static:1) clause, but not the other clauses nor other styles of
gang arguments.
the static clause is
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 03:53:17PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> This patch has some new execution tests, verifying loop partitioning is
> behaving as expected.
>
> There are more execution tests on the gomp4 branch, but many of them use
> reductions. We'll merge those once reductions are merged
On 10/21/15 16:14, Ilya Verbin wrote:
<11-trunk-tests.patch>
Does the testcase with offload IR appear here accidentally?
D'oh! yup, fixed.
nathan
2015-10-20 Nathan Sidwell
* testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/loop-g-1.c: New.
* testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/loop-w-1.c: New.
*
> On 21 Oct 2015, at 22:53, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> This patch has some new execution tests, verifying loop partitioning is
> behaving as expected.
>
> There are more execution tests on the gomp4 branch, but many of them use
> reductions. We'll merge those once reductions are merged.
>
>
This patch has some new execution tests, verifying loop partitioning is behaving
as expected.
There are more execution tests on the gomp4 branch, but many of them use
reductions. We'll merge those once reductions are merged.
nathan
2015-10-20 Nathan Sidwell
* testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c+
14 matches
Mail list logo