On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:52 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 07:35:09PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > int a[NJ][NI];
> >
> > #pragma acc loop collapse(2)
> > for (int j = 0; j < N_J; ++j)
> > for (int i = 0; i < N_I; ++i)
> > a[j][i] = 0;
>
> For e
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 20:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Rasmus Villemoes:
>
> > This is something I've sometimes found myself wishing was supported. The
> > idea being that one can say
> >
> > unsigned a[] = { [0] = 1, [1] = 3, [0] |= 4, ...}
> >
> > which would end up initializing a[0] to 5. As
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:55:26AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Yeah. Note this still makes the IVs not analyzable since i now effectively
> becomes wrapping in the inner loop. For some special values we might
> get away with a wrapping CHREC in a bit-precision type but we cannot
> represent wr
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 10:32 AM Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Is there any progress on PR85804? There were some discussion about
> the old path at below address, but looks like no further attentions.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-05/msg01026.html
I still say that this is not a contiguo
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:11 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:55:26AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Yeah. Note this still makes the IVs not analyzable since i now effectively
> > becomes wrapping in the inner loop. For some special values we might
> > get away with a wr
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:30:56AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> But isn't _actual_ collapsing an implementation detail?
No, it is required by the standard and in many cases it is very much
observable.
#pragma omp parallel for schedule(nonmonotonic: static, 23) collapse (2)
for (int i = 0; i < 64
Blocked Incoming Messages
The following messages have been blocked by your administrator due to
validation error.
There have been 9 new messages in your email quarantine.
Date: Mon 15 Oct 2018 12:14:00 -0500 (CDT)
User: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Click on deliver messag
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:45 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:30:56AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > But isn't _actual_ collapsing an implementation detail?
>
> No, it is required by the standard and in many cases it is very much
> observable.
> #pragma omp parallel for sc
Solaris 10 is reaching the end of its support live, as can be seen in
the following overview based on
http://www.oracle.com/us/support/library/lsp-coverage-sun-software-309122.pdf,
p.29:
ReleaseGA Date Last Premier Extended GCC
Update Support Support Obsoletion
Is there anyone in the *open* solaris or variant camp who may be impacted
by this? SOL10 gets deprecated and I doubt anyone will really cry fowl, but
can it negatively impact any of the similar open source projects that may
identify at SOL10, but not be exactly the same... Thoughts?
On Mon, Oct 15
C Bergström writes:
> Is there anyone in the *open* solaris or variant camp who may be impacted by
> this?
> SOL10 gets deprecated and I doubt anyone will really cry fowl, but can it
> negatively
> impact any of the similar open source projects that may identify at SOL10,
> but not
> be exactl
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:13 AM C Bergström wrote:
>
> Is there anyone in the *open* solaris or variant camp who may be impacted
> by this? SOL10 gets deprecated and I doubt anyone will really cry fowl, but
> can it negatively impact any of the similar open source projects that may
> identify at
It could be the contribution process for gcc is an obstacle. I don't get
involved with those communities enough to know how well they do or don't
play with upstream. In no way would I want to create extra unnecessary work
for you, but if you really care maybe ping them to see if anyone could help
g
Hi Jeffrey,
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:13 AM C Bergström wrote:
>>
>> Is there anyone in the *open* solaris or variant camp who may be impacted
>> by this? SOL10 gets deprecated and I doubt anyone will really cry fowl, but
>> can it negatively impact any of the similar open source projects that
C Bergström writes:
> It could be the contribution process for gcc is an obstacle. I don't get
> involved with
In which case there's nothing to be done.
> those communities enough to know how well they do or don't play with
> upstream. In
> no way would I want to create extra unnecessary work
* Jonathan Wakely:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 20:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Rasmus Villemoes:
>>
>> > This is something I've sometimes found myself wishing was supported. The
>> > idea being that one can say
>> >
>> > unsigned a[] = { [0] = 1, [1] = 3, [0] |= 4, ...}
>> >
>> > which would en
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 08:11:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jonathan Wakely:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 20:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> * Rasmus Villemoes:
> >>
> >> > This is something I've sometimes found myself wishing was supported. The
> >> > idea being that one can say
> >>
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 20:08, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 08:11:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Jonathan Wakely:
> >
> > > On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 20:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> * Rasmus Villemoes:
> > >>
> > >> > This is something I've sometimes found my
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 2:14 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> > Hmm, and without any OpenACC/OpenMP etc., actually the same problem is
> > also present when running the following code through the vectorizer:
> >
> >for (int tmp = 0; tmp < N_J * N_I; ++tm
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 08:13:19PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 20:08, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 08:11:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Jonathan Wakely:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 20:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > >>
> > >
20 matches
Mail list logo
