Hi all,
Got total silence the last 4 times I posted this, and users have been
bugging me about it offline, so trying again.
This patch fixes a showstopper problem preventing the transparent use
of OpenMP in scientific libraries, esp. with Python. Specifically, it
is currently not possible to use
Hi Jakub,
Thanks for your feedback! See below.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:16:19PM +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> Got total silence the last 4 times I posted this, and users have been
>> bugging me about it offline,
Hi all,
Ping. Again, this patch fixes a limitation in GOMP which makes it
impossible for programmers who care about gcc compatibility to safely
use OpenMP in libraries; GOMP is the last OpenMP implementation with
this limitation.
-n
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
Hello,
Ping for https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00519.html
> Patches posted early enough during Stage 1 and not yet fully reviewed
> may still get in early in Stage 3. Please make sure to ping them
> soon enough.
This patch was initially posted before stage 1 opened... for 4.9. So
Ping^4 for: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00519.html
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ping for https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00519.html
>
>> Patches posted early enough during Stage 1 and not yet fully reviewe
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> Stage3 is closing rapidly. I've drained my queue of patches I was tracking
> for gcc-5.However, note that I don't track everything. If it's a patch
> for a backend, language other than C or seemingly has another maintainer
> that's engaged
Hi Jeff,
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/15/15 15:34, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Stage3 is closing rapidly. I've drained my queue of patches I was
>>&g
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/15/15 16:43, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Jakub, myself and management have discussed this issue extensively and
>>> those
>>> patches specifically. I'm painfully aware of how
Ping^2.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On 19 Oct 2014 23:44, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jakub,
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback! See below.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jakub Jeline
Ping^5 for: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00519.html
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Ping^4 for: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00519.html
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> Hello,
>&
support this functionality.
-n
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> On 02/16/2014 03:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>>> Yes, but
Problem: A common use care for OMP is to accelerate the internal
workings of an otherwise serial interface. For example, OpenBLAS in
some settings will internally use OMP to accelerate the implementation
of matrix-matrix multiply (DGEMM). When DGEMM is called, then an OMP
section is started, the wo
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/14/2014 12:21 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> Any reason not to just run gomp_free_thread_pool from
>>> gomp_after_fork_callback
>>> directly? I see no restrictions on what kind of code is allowed to execute
>>> during that callback.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:21:24AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Well, fork is async signal safe function, so calling malloc/free, or any
>> kind of synchronization primitives is completely unsafe there.
>>
>> The only safe thing could be to
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/16/2014 03:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> Yes, but the problem is that depending on what the user intends to do
>> after forking, our pthread_atfork handler might help or it might hurt,
>> and we don't
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 02/16/2014 03:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> Yes, but the problem is that depending on what the user intends to do
>>> after forking, our pthrea
16 matches
Mail list logo
