On 9/11/20 5:03 PM, tdevries wrote:
On 2020-09-11 16:48, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 11/09/2020 15:25, Tom de Vries wrote:
--- a/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c-c++-common/reduction-16.c
+++ b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c-c++-common/reduction-16.c
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
/*·{·dg-do·run·}·*/
+/*·{·dg-addition
On 2020-09-11 16:48, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
On 11/09/2020 15:25, Tom de Vries wrote:
--- a/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c-c++-common/reduction-16.c
+++ b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c-c++-common/reduction-16.c
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
/*·{·dg-do·run·}·*/
+/*·{·dg-additional-options·"-foffload=-latomic"·}·*/
On 11/09/2020 15:25, Tom de Vries wrote:
--- a/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c-c++-common/reduction-16.c
+++ b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c-c++-common/reduction-16.c
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
/*·{·dg-do·run·}·*/
+/*·{·dg-additional-options·"-foffload=-latomic"·}·*/
This will probably break amdgcn, where lib
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 04:24:42PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> I've got an updated version of this patch. It:
> - no longer supplies the __atomic_load_16, since that's now handled by
> libatomic
> - the __sync_val_compare_and_swap now uses __atomic_compare_and_swap,
> which also falls back on
[ Fixing ENOPATCH. ]
On 9/11/20 4:24 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 9/2/20 1:48 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 9/2/20 12:44 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 12:22:28PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
And test-case passes on x86_64 with this patch (obviously, in
combination wi
On 9/2/20 1:48 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 9/2/20 12:44 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 12:22:28PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> And test-case passes on x86_64 with this patch (obviously, in
>>> combination with trigger patch above).
>>>
>>> Jakub, WDYT?
>>
>> I guess the norm
On 9/2/20 12:44 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 12:22:28PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> And test-case passes on x86_64 with this patch (obviously, in
>> combination with trigger patch above).
>>
>> Jakub, WDYT?
>
> I guess the normal answer would be use libatomic, but it isn't
On 9/2/20 12:22 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
Tobias, can you try on powerpc?
Testcase now compiles and runs w/o error message.
On 9/2/20 12:44 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I guess the normal answer would be use libatomic, but it isn't ported for
nvptx.
I guess at least temporarily this is ok,though
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 12:22:28PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> And test-case passes on x86_64 with this patch (obviously, in
> combination with trigger patch above).
>
> Jakub, WDYT?
I guess the normal answer would be use libatomic, but it isn't ported for
nvptx.
I guess at least temporarily thi
