On 2018-07-19 20:55, Hal Finkel wrote:
On 07/19/2018 09:01 AM, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
On 2018-07-19 15:43, Hal Finkel wrote:
On 07/16/2018 01:19 PM, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
[ Moving discussion from https://reviews.llvm.org/D49386 to the
relevant comment on cfe-commits, CC'ing Hal who commented on the
original issue ]
Is this change really a good idea? It always requires libatomic for
all OpenMP applications, even if there is no 'omp atomic' directive
or
all of them can be lowered to atomic instructions that don't require
a
runtime library. I'd argue that it's a larger restriction than the
problem it solves.
Can you please elaborate on why you feel that this is problematic?
The linked patch deals with the case that there is no libatomic,
effectively disabling all tests of the OpenMP runtime (even though
only few of them require atomic instructions). So apparently there are
Linux systems without libatomic. Taking them any chance to use OpenMP
with Clang is a large regression IMO and not user-friendly either.
If there's a significant population of such systems, then this
certainly
seems like a problem.
Let's revert this for now while we figure out what to do (which might
just mean updating the documentation to include OpenMP where we talk
about atomics).
Alexey, what do you think? Can I go ahead and revert this commit?
Thanks,
Jonas
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
