On 10/06/15 02:12, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:33:07AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
2015-10-01 Nathan Sidwell
* builtins.c: Don't include gomp-constants.h.
(fold_builtin_1): Don't fold acc_on_device here.
* gimple-fold.c: Include gomp-constant
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:33:07AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> 2015-10-01 Nathan Sidwell
>
> * builtins.c: Don't include gomp-constants.h.
> (fold_builtin_1): Don't fold acc_on_device here.
> * gimple-fold.c: Include gomp-constants.h.
> (gimple_fold_builtin_acc_on_dev
On 10/01/2015 01:11 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 10/01/15 13:00, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
btw, not that it's necessarily important, but I'm about to submit the
include
reduction patches today, and it turns out this line is the first use of
anything from cgraph.h in builtins.c.
So if this is "th
On 10/01/15 13:00, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
btw, not that it's necessarily important, but I'm about to submit the include
reduction patches today, and it turns out this line is the first use of
anything from cgraph.h in builtins.c.
So if this is "the way" of doing the test, be aware it adds a dep
On 09/30/2015 08:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Please don't add any new GENERIC based builtin folders. Instead add to
gimple-fold.c:gimple_fold_builtin
Otherwise you're just generating more work for us who move foldings from
builtins.c to
On 10/01/15 08:46, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
use TREE_TYPE (arg0) for the integer cst.
Otherwise looks good to me.
thanks,
fixed up and applied (also noticed a copy & paste malfunction setting the
location)
nathan
2015-10-01 Nathan Sidw
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/01/15 06:03, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>
>>> Wouldn't it be better to just emit GIMPLE here instead?
>>> So
>>>tree res = make_ssa_name (boolean_type_node);
>>>gimple g
On 10/01/15 06:03, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to just emit GIMPLE here instead?
So
tree res = make_ssa_name (boolean_type_node);
gimple g = gimple_build_assign (res, EQ_EXPR, arg0,
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:01:22PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> On 09/30/15 08:46, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> >>>Please don't add any new GENERIC based builtin folders. Instead add to
>> >>>gimple-fold.c:gimple_fold_builtin
>>
>> Is this
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:01:22PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 09/30/15 08:46, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >>>Please don't add any new GENERIC based builtin folders. Instead add to
> >>>gimple-fold.c:gimple_fold_builtin
>
> Is this patch ok?
>
> nathan
> 2015-09-30 Nathan Sidwell
>
>
On 09/30/15 08:46, Richard Biener wrote:
Please don't add any new GENERIC based builtin folders. Instead add to
gimple-fold.c:gimple_fold_builtin
Is this patch ok?
nathan
2015-09-30 Nathan Sidwell
* builtins.c: Don't include gomp-constants.h.
(fold_builtin_1): Don't fold acc_on_device
On 09/30/15 08:46, Richard Biener wrote:
I'll add a comment to builtins.c
(not that I expect anyone sees it ;))
Put one instance at the default: label in expand_builtin?
nathan
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 09/30/15 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch folds acc_on_device as a regular builtin, but postponed until
>>> we
>>> know which compiler we're in. As suggested by
On 09/30/2015 02:18 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 09/30/15 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
Please don't add any new GENERIC based builtin folders. Instead add to
gimple-fold.c:gimple_fold_builtin
Otherwise you're just generating more work for us who move foldings from
builtins.c to gimple-fold.c.
On 09/30/15 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
This patch folds acc_on_device as a regular builtin, but postponed until we
know which compiler we're in. As suggested by Bernd, we use the existing
builtin folding machinery.
Trunk is still using
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> This patch folds acc_on_device as a regular builtin, but postponed until we
> know which compiler we're in. As suggested by Bernd, we use the existing
> builtin folding machinery.
>
> Trunk is still using the older PTX runtime scheme (Thom
On 09/29/15 15:52, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Ok, although I really don't quite see the need to drop the expander.
Unnecessary code duplication. It's better to say something once in one place,
than try and say it twice in two different places.
nathan
On 09/29/2015 08:21 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
This patch folds acc_on_device as a regular builtin, but postponed until
we know which compiler we're in. As suggested by Bernd, we use the
existing builtin folding machinery.
Trunk is still using the older PTX runtime scheme (Thomas is working on
18 matches
Mail list logo
