Hi! On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:25:30 +0200, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:19:31AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:14:38 +0200, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:06:18AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:30:34 +0200, Thomas König <t...@tkoenig.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > the recent patch to make the gfortran and libgomp testsuites more > > > > > standard conforming, by replacing CALL ABORT() with STOP N, led > > > > > to numerous testsuite failures on nvptx because stop_numeric > > > > > was not implemented in minimal.c. > > > > > > > > > > I have committed the patch below in r259072 as obvious after Tom > > > > > de Vries had confirmed that it solves the problem. > > > > > > > > ... for some meaning of "solves the problem"; see below. ;-) Which you > > > > couldn't know, of course. (So, definitely thanks anyway, for promptly > > > > addressing the issue raised!) > > > > > > My preference would be just to revert the call abort to stop n changes > > > in target regions. > > > > That seems backwards to me -- having "exit" (as well as Fortran language > > "stop" and "error stop") inside offloaded regions do the right thing is > > something we wanted to do anyway, eventually. > > I'm looking for a GCC8 fix, and for that it seems like the simplest > and safest solution.
As far as I know, the "call abort to stop n" changes regressed nvptx targets only, and that's now fixed (and improved to handle more Fortran language "stop" and "error stop" variants), so I don't see a reason to iterate once again? (Or, why didn't you then already dispute Thomas König's nvptx/libgfortran minimal.c patch adding stop_numeric?) > > > Mapping exit to abort is weird > > > > Sure, that's why PR85463 is still open, and has some (initial) > > comments/ideas regarding that. > > > > > and making exit terminate whole process even > > > when called from offloaded regions might be too expensive. > > > > In what way "too expensive"? > > If you need to add code to handle that case to every target region entry > just in case something does stop, the slow down might be too high and > unacceptable. Depends on how it is implemented. Right, but that's again "why PR85463 is still open, and has some (initial) comments/ideas regarding that", and no overhead has so far been introduced. Grüße Thomas
