Re: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 17:15:11 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:40:22 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > Do you plan to commit this patch? :) > > Well, I'm also still waiting for you guys to merge (via the upstream > Intel sources repository) my GNU Hurd portability patches; su

Re: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

Hi! On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:40:22 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote: > Do you plan to commit this patch? :) Well, I'm also still waiting for you guys to merge (via the upstream Intel sources repository) my GNU Hurd portability patches; submitted to GCC in

Re: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

Hi Thomas! Do you plan to commit this patch? :) On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 09:24:40 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 09/29/14 08:26, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:58:31 +, "Tannenbaum, Barry M" > > wrote: > >>In a nutshell, add the following code to main() before the call to f3():

Re: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

On 09/29/14 08:26, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hi! On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:58:31 +, "Tannenbaum, Barry M" wrote: In a nutshell, add the following code to main() before the call to f3(): int status = __cilkrts_set_param("nworkers", "2"); if (0 != status) { // Failed to set th

RE: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

o:tho...@codesourcery.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 10:27 AM To: Tannenbaum, Barry M; Iyer, Balaji V; Zamyatin, Igor Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: RE: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C Hi! On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:58:31 +, "Tannenbaum, Barry M" wrote:

RE: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

Hi! On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:58:31 +, "Tannenbaum, Barry M" wrote: > In a nutshell, add the following code to main() before the call to f3(): > > int status = __cilkrts_set_param("nworkers", "2"); > if (0 != status) { > // Failed to set the number of Cilk workers > ret

RE: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

ng. - Barry -Original Message- From: Thomas Schwinge [mailto:tho...@codesourcery.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 6:54 AM To: Tannenbaum, Barry M; Iyer, Balaji V; Zamyatin, Igor Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: RE: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C Hi!

RE: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

Schwinge [mailto:tho...@codesourcery.com] > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 9:56 AM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C > > Hi! > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 21:30:49 +, "Iyer,

RE: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

14 9:56 AM To: Iyer, Balaji V Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C Hi! On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 21:30:49 +, "Iyer, Balaji V" wrote: > --- /dev/null > +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/spawning_arg.c > @@ -0,

Re: FW: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

Hi! On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 21:30:49 +, "Iyer, Balaji V" wrote: > --- /dev/null > +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/spawning_arg.c > @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ > +/* { dg-do run { target { i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* arm*-*-* } } } */ > +/* { dg-options "-fcilkplus" } */ > +/* { dg-options "-lcilkrts"

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

"Iyer, Balaji V" writes: > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cilk-plus/cilk-plus.exp > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cilk-plus/cilk-plus.exp > index 707d17e..36c8111 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cilk-plus/cilk-plus.exp > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cilk-plus/cilk-plus.exp > @@ -22,6 +22,14 @@ if

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 12/10/2013 06:03 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Fixed patch and ChangeLog entries are attached. Is it Ok to install? OK. Jason

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 12/05/2013 11:38 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: used the init_p value that comes out of stabilize_expr I guess you didn't look at the patch I sent you... Since you've fixed extract_free_variables, you don't need call_to_lambda_fn_p at all, or to call stabilize_expr. Why do you need to move a

RE: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

> -Original Message- > From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 4:00 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Jeff Law > Subject: Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++ > > On 12/04/2013 02:45

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 12/04/2013 02:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: + error_at (input_location, "_Cilk_sync cannot be used without enabling" + "Cilk Plus"); + cp_lexer_consume_token (parser->lexer); + if (parser->in_statement & IN_CILK_SPAWN) + parser->in_statement = parser->in_sta

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 12/04/2013 05:42 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: I had in mind that the declaration would be in c-common.h, but each front end would have a different definition in the front end directory, kind of like how all front ends need to define "convert". I didn't know it was an OK thing to do. I think i

RE: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

> -Original Message- > From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 5:39 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Jeff Law > Subject: Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++ > > On 12/03/2013 07:08 PM, Iyer

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 12/03/2013 07:08 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: In install_body_with_frame_cleanup for C++, I am using trees such as TRY_CATCH_EXPR and am using a function from the cp/except.c. I didn't know how to bring them to c-family. I had in mind that the declaration would be in c-common.h, but each fro

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 12/03/2013 02:48 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Now, after all that I must admit that cilk_spawn could only ever see VEC_INIT_EXPR in the context of a lambda closure initialization, and the default behavior should always be correct for a lambda closure initialization, so I guess I'm willing to allo

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 12/03/2013 10:22 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Please remove these langhooks and instead add handling of CILK_SPAWN_STMT to c_gimplify_expr and cp_gimplify_expr. I really cannot do this because if the spawned function returns a value, the whole expression must be pushed into the spawn

RE: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

> > > case CILK_SPAWN_STMT: > > gcc_assert > > (fn_contains_cilk_spawn_p (cfun) > > && lang_hooks.cilkplus.cilk_detect_spawn_and_unwrap (expr_p)); > > if (!seen_error ()) > > { > > ret = (enum gimplify_status) > >

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 11/28/2013 11:40 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Consider the following test case. I took this from the lambda_spawns.cc line #203. as you can tell, it is clobbering the lambda closure at the end of the lambda calling and then it is catching value of A from main2 as it is supposed to. Yep, your

RE: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

> -Original Message- > From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 9:11 AM > To: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Jeff Law > Subject: Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++ > > On 11/27/2013 11:05 PM, Iyer, Balaj

RE: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

> -Original Message- > From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 9:11 AM > To: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Jeff Law > Subject: Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++ > > On 11/27/2013 11:05 PM, Iyer, Balaj

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 11/27/2013 11:05 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Found the bug. I was not utilizing the stabilize_expr's output correctly. Unfortunately, I think I was misleading you with talk of stabilize; like you said, you want to evaluate the whole expression in the spawned function rather than in the calle

RE: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

> -Original Message- > From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:24 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Jeff Law > Subject: Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++ > > On 11/27/2013 05:59 PM, Iyer, Bala

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 11/27/2013 05:59 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Well, if I use copy_tree_body_r for C and C++, in lambda functions, it asserts in varasm.c. The main reason I see that, the copy_tree_body_r walks into the closure and then maps the variables from the lambda function from the spawner to the helper

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 11/27/2013 01:25 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: I think a better approach would be to add a cp_build_cilk_spawn that uses stabilize_call to pre-evaluate the arguments of the call. I really can't pre-evaluate the calls before I move into the nested function because all those parts must be in the

RE: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

> -Original Message- > From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:43 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Jeff Law > Subject: Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++ > > On 11/25/2013 10:50 AM, Iyer, Ba

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 11/25/2013 10:50 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: I have fixed this issue. My function to map the variable's context from the spawner to the spawn helper function was going into the lambda function. I made it stop by adding a language specific copy_tree_body (basically stop going into the lambda

RE: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

Hi Jason, Please see my responses below > -Original Message- > From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 10:51 AM > To: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Jeff Law > Subject: Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++ >

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 11/21/2013 05:40 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: +/* Returns a TRY_CATCH_EXPR that will encapsulate BODY, EXCEPT_DATA and + EXCEPT_FLAG. */ + +tree +create_cilk_try_catch (tree except_flag, tree except_data, tree body) +{ + tree catch_list = alloc_stmt_list (); + append_to_statement_list (excep

RE: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Jeff Law > Subject: Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++ > > On 11/17/2013 10:19 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > >cp/cp-cilkplus.o \ > > - cp/cp-gimplify.o cp/cp-array-notation.o cp/lambda.o \ > > + cp/cp-gimplify.o cp/cp-array-notation.

Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

On 11/17/2013 10:19 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: cp/cp-cilkplus.o \ - cp/cp-gimplify.o cp/cp-array-notation.o cp/lambda.o \ + cp/cp-gimplify.o cp/cp-array-notation.o cp/lambda.o cp/cp-cilk.o \ It seems unnecessary to have both cp-cilk.c and cp-cilkplus.c. Please combine them. + extern tre

[PING]: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

approved. Thanks, Balaji V. Iyer. > -Original Message- > From: Iyer, Balaji V > Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 10:19 PM > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com); Jeff Law > Subject: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++ > > Hello Jason et

_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++

Hello Jason et al., Mike Stump mentioned that my _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++ may have been lost in the email pile. So, attached is an updated _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++ patch. Is this Ok to install? Here are the ChangeLog entries (they shouldn't have changed sinc

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:01:45PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > Thanks! I will extract and check in the Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C work. This broke bootstrap on i686-linux, fixed thusly, committed as obvious: 2013-10-30 Jakub Jelinek * cilk.c (create_cilk_helper_decl): Use HOST

RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

hat.com) > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and > C++) > > On 10/22/13 10:22, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > Hi Jeff, I have attached 2 patches - 1 for C and 1 for C++ - along > > with the changelogs (Change

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

On 10/22/13 10:22, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Hi Jeff, I have attached 2 patches - 1 for C and 1 for C++ - along with the changelogs (ChangeLog.cilkplus for C and common changes, cp-ChangeLog.cilkplus for C++ specific files) with the changes you have requested. Answers to your questions are given bel

RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

[PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and > C++) > > On 10/23/13 13:46, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > >> > >>>> Can you take a look at calls.c::special_function_p and determine if > >>>> we need > >> to > >>>>

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

On 10/23/13 13:46, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Can you take a look at calls.c::special_function_p and determine if we need to do something special for spawn here? I will look into it and let you know. Any word on this? Hi Jeff, I looked into this function and from what I can tell, it is used

RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

> > >> Can you take a look at calls.c::special_function_p and determine if we need > to > >> do something special for spawn here? > >> > > > > I will look into it and let you know. > Any word on this? > Hi Jeff, I looked into this function and from what I can tell, it is used to mark ce

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

On 10/16/13 15:49, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: In ira.c: + /* We need a frame pointer for all Cilk Plus functions that use + Cilk keywords. */ + || (flag_enable_cilkplus && cfun->is_cilk_function) Can you explain to me a bit more why you need a frame pointer? I'm trying to determ

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

On 09/11/13 12:18, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Hello Everyone, Couple weeks back, I had submitted a patch for review that will implement Cilk keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) into the C compiler. I recently finished C++ implementation also. In this email, I am attaching 2 patches: 1 for C (and the

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

On 10/18/13 15:06, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: The main reason why I made it volatile (as expressed by the volatil bool variable) is that I want to make sure these values aren't optimized by the compiler and the value is fetched from memory on every access. I have added an explanation to the header co

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

On 10/18/13 15:06, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Hi Jeff, Please see my comments below. Also, I am adding all these changes to the files as you requested in my local directory. Should I send you an updated patch along the way? I'll let you know when I've worked my way through everything. ISTM an update

RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:30 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V; r...@redhat.com; Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com); Aldy > Hernandez (al...@redhat.com) > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and > C++) > > On 09/11/

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

On 09/11/13 12:18, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Hello Everyone, Couple weeks back, I had submitted a patch for review that will implement Cilk keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) into the C compiler. I recently finished C++ implementation also. In this email, I am attaching 2 patches: 1 for C (and the

RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

l...@redhat.com) > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and > C++) > > On 09/11/13 12:18, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > Hello Everyone, Couple weeks back, I had submitted a patch for review > > that will implement

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

On 09/11/13 12:18, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Hello Everyone, Couple weeks back, I had submitted a patch for review that will implement Cilk keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) into the C compiler. I recently finished C++ implementation also. In this email, I am attaching 2 patches: 1 for C (and the

[PING][PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

.@redhat.com); Jeff Law; Aldy > Hernandez (al...@redhat.com) > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and > C++) > > Hello Everyone, > Couple weeks back, I had submitted a patch for review that will > impl

RE: [PING]RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

13 7:14 PM > To: 'r...@redhat.com'; 'Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com)'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy > Hernandez (al...@redhat.com)' > Cc: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org' > Subject: [PING]RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C > (and C

[PING]RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

z (al...@redhat.com) > Cc: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org' > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and > C++) > > Hello, > Has anyone had a chance to look at this. The C++ part is only a week > old, but the C part has been in review

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

On 09/17/2013 08:50 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Hello, Has anyone had a chance to look at this. The C++ part is only a week old, but the C part has been in review for ~3 weeks. I would greatly appreciate if someone could review this and approve for trunk if it is Ok for trunk. Obviously not yet.

RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and C++)

age- > From: Iyer, Balaji V > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:18 PM > To: r...@redhat.com; Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com); Jeff Law; Aldy > Hernandez (al...@redhat.com) > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (a

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

+ case CILK_SYNC_STMT: +{ + if (!cfun->cilk_frame_decl) + { + error_at (input_location, "expected %<_Cilk_spawn%> before " + "%<_Cilk_sync%>"); + ret = GS_ERROR; + } First, surely you have a location you can use, instea

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

On 08/27/13 16:27, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Hello Aldy, I went through all the emails and here are the major issues that I could gather (other than lowering the keywords after gimplification, which I am skipping since it is more of an optimization for now). Ok, for now I am fine with delaying hand

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

On 08/21/13 14:59, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: -Original Message- From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:31 AM To: Iyer, Balaji V Cc: r...@redhat.com; Jeff Law; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync

RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

> -Original Message- > From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:31 AM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: r...@redhat.com; Jeff Law; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C >

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

On 08/21/2013 09:31 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: May I stress again the importance of tests-- which are especially critical for new language features. You don't want cilk silently breaking thus rendering all your hard work moot, do you? :)) Agreed. While we don't have a strict policy for testing

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

Even more review stuff. Are you keeping track of all this Balaji? :) + if (warn) +warning (0, "suspicious use of _Cilk_spawn"); First, as I've mentioned, this error message is very ambiguous. You should strive to provide better error messages. See my previous comment on this same lin

RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

Balaji V > Cc: r...@redhat.com; Jeff Law; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub Jelinek > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C > > [rth, law, jakub: Your input required throughout...please.] > > More review stuff... > > Overall, I must say, I

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

[rth, law, jakub: Your input required throughout...please.] More review stuff... Overall, I must say, I'm not a big fan of the super early expansion you're doing right after parsing. I mean, you leave CILK_SPAWN and CILK_SYNC keywords as is (in tree form until gimplification) but there's thi

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

@@ -960,6 +960,7 @@ SCEV_H = tree-scalar-evolution.h $(GGC_H) tree-chrec.h $(PARAMS_H) OMEGA_H = omega.h $(PARAMS_H) TREE_DATA_REF_H = tree-data-ref.h $(OMEGA_H) graphds.h $(SCEV_H) TREE_INLINE_H = tree-inline.h +CILK_H = cilk.h REAL_H = real.h $(MACHMODE_H) IRA_INT_H = ira.h ira-int.h $(CFG

RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 12:52 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: Aldy Hernandez; r...@redhat.com; Jeff Law; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > > +enum add

RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > +enum add_variable_type { Two spaces before '{', should be one. > +static HOST_WIDE_INT cilk_wrapper_count; This is HOST_WIDE_INT but you use it later with sprintf with %ld; you need to use HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC in such a case > + tree map = (tr

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

--- gcc/expr.c +++ gcc/expr.c @@ -9569,6 +9569,21 @@ expand_expr_real_1 (tree exp, rtx target, enum machine_mode tmode, } return expand_constructor (exp, target, modifier, false); +case INDIRECT_REF: + { + tree exp1 = TREE_OPERAND (exp, 0); + if (modifier

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

On 08/06/2013 06:49 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >> --- gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c >> +++ gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c >> @@ -1433,6 +1433,9 @@ initialize_inline_failed (struct cgraph_edge *e) >> e->inline_failed = CIF_REDEFINED_EXTERN_INLINE; >>else if (e->call_stmt_cannot_inline_p) >> e->i

Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C

[Richard, small question for you below]. Not all your changes to Makefile.in have a changelog entry. +c-family/cilk.o : c-family/cilk.c $(TREE_H) $(SYSTEM_H) $(CONFIG_H) toplev.h \ +$(TREE_H) coretypes.h tree-iterator.h $(TREE_INLINE_H) $(CGRAPH_H) \ + $(DIAGNOSTIC_COR