Re: Compile Farm : one year uptime, call for projects

Hello! On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:16:07PM +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > Excepted two machines I opened to change their disk, the nine GCC > Compile Farm bi-pentium III machines are reaching one year uptime today: Congratulations! > There are currently 17 users with access to the farm, new user

Re: Compile Farm : one year uptime, call for projects

Hello! On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 07:51:13PM +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 11:16 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Would me using (one of) the machines for maintaining GNU/Hurd cross-build > > environments (i.e. binutils, GCC, glibc) be an admissible project?

Re: How to Install GCC

Hello! On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 10:45:53AM -0400, Sadri SARRAY wrote: > Please, Would you like to send me a procedure to install the GCC > compiler on a Linux-Ubuntu OS ? With a power screwdriver. Regards, Thomas signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Wrong GCC PR2020 annotated for "[committed, libgomp,amdgcn] Fix plugin-gcn.c bug"

Hi! On 2020-01-23T12:46:24+, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > I've committed this patch to fix a bug in the OpenMP argument parsing. . Why did "the system" decided to annotate ? For obvious reasons, there are

Git branch name to use for development branch based on release branch, not master

Hi! Short version: OK to use Git branch name devel/omp/gcc-9 for what used to be Subversion openacc-gcc-9-branch? We used to have Subversion openacc-gcc-9-branch etc. branches: "for collaborative development of OpenACC support and related functionality, such as offloading support. The branch is

devel/omp/gcc-9 branch (was: [wwwdocs] Document existence of openacc-gcc-9-branch)

t> "Git branch name to use for development branch based on release branch, not master", I've pushed this as devel/omp/gcc-9, and pushed to gcc-wwwdocs the attached commit 6b92a4c7033db33ed5b6827e826a561077ed2181 "Document devel/omp/gcc-9 branch". Grüße Thomas From

Re: OpenACC

Hi! On 2020-03-26T12:14:53+0430, MAHDI LOTFI via Gcc wrote: > I am a researcher from Jam Petrochemical company I want to use OpenACC with > GCC compiler. I have a question about your compiler. Thanks for your interest in this. > Does your compiler support OpenACC in windows OS or not? As far a

OpenACC with AMD Radeon GPU offloading

Hi! On 2020-04-07T00:12:41+0430, MAHDI LOTFI via Gcc wrote: > I am a researcher from Jam Petrochemical company I want to use OpenACC with > GCC compiler(FORTRAN language). Thanks for your interest. Please, use a proper Subject for your emails (see how I changed it), and include any relevant inf

Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs

Hi! On 2020-05-06T10:44:46-0400, "Frank Ch. Eigler via Gcc" wrote: >> Can pipermail provide stable URLs at all? We really >> need those, we reference those in commit messages, other mails, bugzilla >> etc. > It would be good to have another way of making permanent URLs for > individual messages

DejaGnu/GCC testsuite behavior regarding multiple 'dg-do'

Hi! Comparing DejaGnu/GCC testsuite '*.sum' files between two systems ("old" vs. "new") that ought to return identical results, I found that they didn't: @@ -75032,6 +75023,7 @@ PASS: g++.dg/expr/bitfield4.C -std=c++98 (test for excess errors) PASS: g++.dg/expr/bitfield5.C -std=c++14

Automatic vs. manual 'ChangeLog' files updates for devel/ branches etc. (was: [PATCH] wwwdocs: Document devel/omp/gcc-10 branch)

Hi! On 2020-06-10T17:15:41+0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > On 6/10/20 3:34 PM, Kwok Cheung Yeung wrote: >> This patch updates the previous entry on the website for >> devel/omp/gcc-9 to refer to the new branch instead. This removes >> references to the old branch, as new development should occur on

Complete 'ChangeLog' files state (was: GCC 10.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org)

Hi! On 2020-07-15T13:50:35+0200, Richard Biener wrote: > The first release candidate for GCC 10.2 is available from > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.2.0-RC-20200715/ > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.2.0-RC-20200715/ > > and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from gi

DejaGnu diagnostics checking confused, possibly related to 'dg-line'?

Hi! Help. Save the attached file as 'gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/goacc/l_.c', and then run: $ make check-gcc-c++ RUNTESTFLAGS=--all\ goacc.exp=l_.c As expected for '-std=c++98' testing, which comes first: PASS: c-c++-common/goacc/l_.c -std=c++98 (test for errors, line 14) PASS: c-

Re: DejaGnu diagnostics checking confused, possibly related to 'dg-line'?

Hi! I've investigated some more. On 2020-11-03T13:31:53+0100, I wrote: > Help. Save the attached file as 'gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/goacc/l_.c', > and then run: > > $ make check-gcc-c++ RUNTESTFLAGS=--all\ goacc.exp=l_.c > > As expected for '-std=c++98' testing, which comes first: > > P

Git commit "Author: [...] via Gcc-patches " (was: [gcc r11-5068] Update documentation for spec files)

Hi! (As discussed before...), in 2020, email doesn't work anymore the way it did years ago... ;-/ (Let's please *not* discuss this here.) So we're now dealing with emails with "From: [...] via Gcc-patches ", etc. ... which occasionally then ends up in Git commit author: On 2020-11-17T00:15:36+

Minimum CUDA version supported by GCC?

Hi! As far as I can tell, we (GCC) don't currently state the minimum CUDA version supported: for nvptx target, and especially then for OpenACC/OpenMP nvptx offloading. , ,

Re: DejaGnu diagnostics checking confused, possibly related to 'dg-line'?

Hi! Ping. Anybody got an opinion on the approach we should take? Grüße Thomas On 2020-11-03T15:21:40+0100, I wrote: > Hi! > > I've investigated some more. > > On 2020-11-03T13:31:53+0100, I wrote: >> Help. Save the attached file as 'gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/goacc/l_.c', >> and then run: >

Question about 'gcc/fold-const.c:fold_convert_loc' for 'real_cst' -> 'reference_type' of 'real_type'

Hi! In a development branch based on devel/omp/gcc-10 branch (og10), which is based on releases/gcc-10 branch, I'm running into the following issue. But: the master branch code seems to look the same. Given a specific scenario, we run into an ICE: during GIMPLE pass: oaccdevlow dump file

'walk_stmt_load_store_addr_ops' for non-'gimple_assign_single_p (stmt)'

Hi! First time I'm using this API -- so the error certainly may be on my side. ;-) What I'm doing, is a 'walk_gimple_seq', and in that one's 'callback_stmt', call 'walk_stmt_load_store_addr_ops', to collect variable load/store/address-taken instances. This did seem quite straight-forward, given

Re: 'walk_stmt_load_store_addr_ops' for non-'gimple_assign_single_p (stmt)'

Hi! Richard, thanks for your answer. I'll need to look into this more; two questions already: On 2021-03-15T20:17:17+0100, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > On March 15, 2021 7:31:46 PM GMT+01:00, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: >>First time I'm using this API -- so the error

Re: 'walk_stmt_load_store_addr_ops' for non-'gimple_assign_single_p (stmt)'

Hi! Thanks, Michael, and again Richard for your quick responses. On 2021-03-16T15:25:10+, Michael Matz wrote: > On Tue, 16 Mar 2021, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >> >>Indeed, given (Fortran) 'zzz = 1', we produce GIMPLE: >> >> >> &g

Re: 'walk_stmt_load_store_addr_ops' for non-'gimple_assign_single_p (stmt)'

Hi! On 2021-03-17T08:46:16+0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:25 AM Thomas Schwinge > wrote: >> This is a prototype/"initial hack" for a very simple implementation of >> <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR90591> "Avoid unnecessary data transfe

Re: consistent naming of passes....

Hi! Funny that I a) had come across the same issue mentioned below, and then b) today, while searching for something else in my mail archive, stumbled over this (unanswered) email. ;-) On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:29:17 +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > When I compile some file (precisely, the gc

Offloading: libgfortran, libm dependencies

Hi! For example, Fortran source code that uses the ABORT intrinsic, such as: program main implicit none print *, "CheCKpOInT" !$omp target call abort !$omp end target end program main ... currently indeed does terminate program execution, for examp

aarch64-suse-linux-gnu: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/abort-1.c, libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/abort-3.c FAILs (was: Results for 6.0.0 20151002 (experimental) [trunk revision 228367] (GCC) testsuite on aarch6

Hi Andreas! On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 13:58:55 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > LAST_UPDATED: Fri Oct 2 02:31:25 UTC 2015 (revision 228367) > > Native configuration is aarch64-suse-linux-gnu > === libgomp tests === > > > Running target unix > FAIL: libgomp.oacc-c/../libgomp.oacc-c-c++

Re: aarch64-suse-linux-gnu: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/abort-1.c, libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/abort-3.c FAILs

Hi Andreas! On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:53:03 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Thomas Schwinge writes: > > On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 13:58:55 +0200, Andreas Schwab > > wrote: > >> LAST_UPDATED: Fri Oct 2 02:31:25 UTC 2015 (revision 228367) > >> > >> Nati

abort might not flush all open streams before process termination (was: aarch64-suse-linux-gnu: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/abort-1.c, libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/abort-3.c FAILs)

_id=%3C87twq4p9f4.fsf%40kepler.schwinge.homeip.net%3E>. On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:55:00 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Thomas Schwinge writes: > > > | The two regressed test cases use __builtin_printf instead of fprintf to > > | stderr, but as far as I know, abort is to flush

Re: Offloading: libgfortran, libm dependencies

Hi Bernd! On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:43:24 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/02/2015 05:20 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > How should we handle libgfortran and libm dependencies in offloaded code? > > > > As the linking requirements especially regarding libgfortran may be &

OpenACC (gomp-4_0-branch) patch review (was: Merge from gomp-4_1-branch to trunk)

Hi! On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:12:14 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > I've bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux following > merge from gomp-4_1-branch to trunk, which brings in most of the OpenMP 4.5 > support for C and C++ With nvptx offloading, I'm seeing the following regressions (o

Re: abort might not flush all open streams before process termination (was: aarch64-suse-linux-gnu: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/abort-1.c, libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/abort-3.c FAILs)

starting at > <http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3C87twq4p9f4.fsf%40kepler.schwinge.homeip.net%3E>. > > On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:55:00 +0200, Andreas Schwab > wrote: > > Thomas Schwinge writes: > > > > > | The two regressed test cases use __built

How to rewrite call targets (OpenACC bind clause)

Hi! I have tried a few things, and got things somewhat working, but I'm not satisfied with my results so far, so I'd like to ask for help. OpenACC specifics are not relevant to my question, which I'm thus formulating in a very generic way. (But find an illustrative example at the end of the emai

IPA/cgraph: propagating node frequencies to offloaded functions

Hi! As I'm touching areas of GCC here, that I have no noteworthy experience with (IPA optimizations, cgraph), I'm asking for your help. Thanks! This is primarily to implement a better "avoid offloading" policy for un-parallelized OpenACC kernels constructs with nvptx offloading,

Re: [GCC Wiki] Update of "DebugFission" by CaryCoutant

Hi Cary! On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:58:12 -, GCC Wiki wrote: > The "DebugFission" page has been changed by CaryCoutant: > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebugFission?action=diff&rev1=18&rev2=19 > > = DWARF Extensions for Separate Debug Information Files = > > Updated January 24, 2013 > + > + Th

Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?

00, Jeff Law wrote: > On 03/05/15 17:41, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:39:44 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > >> On 02/23/15 14:41, H.J. Lu wrote: > >>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:56:

Debugging offload compiler ICEs

Hi! It is currently difficult to debug offloading compiler invocations. These are actually lto1 front ends invoked from the target compilation's collect2 process, via the respective offloading toolchain's mkoffload. To the best of my knowledge, it's not possible to use the target compiler's "-wrap

Re: Debugging offload compiler ICEs

Hi! On Tue, 3 May 2016 12:54:23 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > > It is currently difficult to debug offloading compiler invocations. > > These are actually lto1 front ends invoked from the target compilation'

(Problems with) coexistence of target and offloading compiler installations

Hi! I'm atttaching three files with (abridged) listings of how/what we're currently installing for a 32-/64-bit x86_64 GNU/Linux target compiler, and nvptx-none as well as x86_64-intelmicemul-linux-gnu offloading compilers. For offloading compilation to work (that is, for the target compiler to l

"error: static assertion failed: [...]" (was: [GCC Wiki] Update of "DiagnosticsGuidelines" by MartinSebor)

Hi! I had recently noticed that given: #ifndef __cplusplus /* C */ _Static_assert(0, "foo"); #else /* C++ */ static_assert(0, "foo"); #endif ..., for C we diagnose: [...]:2:1: error: static assertion failed: "foo" _Static_assert(0, "foo"); ^~ ...,

GCC testsuite maintenance (was: [PATCH] Fix OpenACC vector_length parsing in fortran)

Hi! Including in case others also have opinions on "GCC testsuite maintenance". On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:21:13 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 09:44:25AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Does that me we (erroneously) accept any random junk after [...]

[GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to test

targets (for example, "intelmic" > > > | vs. "x86_64-intelmicemul-linux-gnu"), and I'm using both variables -- > > > | to avoid having to translate the more specific > > > | "x86_64-intelmicemul-linux-gnu" (which we required in the t

Re: why do we need xtensa-config.h?

Hi! Neither do I really know anything about Xtensa, nor do I have a lot of experience in these parts of GCC back ends, but: On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 20:42:53 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > i'm one of ath9k-htc-firmware developers. Currently i'm looking for the > way to provide this firmware as openso

Advice sought for debugging a lto1 ICE (was: Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types [version 6])

Hi! I trimmed the CC list -- I'm looking for advice about debugging a lto1 ICE. On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:05:59 +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > Can you quickly verify if LTO works with the new types? I don't see > > anything > > that would prevent it b

Re: Advice sought for debugging a lto1 ICE (was: Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types [version 6])

Hi! On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:23:18 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > > I trimmed the CC list -- I'm looking for advice about debugging a lto1 > > ICE. > > > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:05:59 +, Joseph Mye

[PR lto/77458] Avoid ICE in offloading with differing _FloatN, _FloatNx types (was: Advice sought for debugging a lto1 ICE (was: Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types [version 6]))

d Biener > wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Schwinge > > wrote: > > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:05:59 +, Joseph Myers > > > wrote: > > >> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > >> > Can you quickly verify if LTO

Re: [PR lto/77458] Avoid ICE in offloading with differing _FloatN, _FloatNx types (was: Advice sought for debugging a lto1 ICE (was: Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types [version 6]))

Hi! On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:59:16 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:43:30 +0200, I wrote: > >> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:23:18 +0200, Richard Biener > >> wrote: > >> > On We

Re: [PR lto/77458] Avoid ICE in offloading with differing _FloatN, _FloatNx types (was: Advice sought for debugging a lto1 ICE (was: Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types [version 6]))

Hi! On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:12:48 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > >> That's what I was afraid of: for example, I can't tell if it holds for > >&g

Re: [PR lto/77458] Avoid ICE in offloading with differing _FloatN, _FloatNx types (was: Advice sought for debugging a lto1 ICE (was: Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types [version 6]))

Hi! On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:18:35 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > > --- gcc/tree-core.h > > +++ gcc/tree-core.h > > @@ -553,20 +553,6 @@ enum tree_index { > >TI_BOOLEAN

Re: [PR lto/77458] Avoid ICE in offloading with differing _FloatN, _FloatNx types

Hi Richard! On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:25:01 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:18:35 +0200, Richard Biener > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Thomas Schwinge >

Explicitly list all tree codes in gcc/tree-streamer.c:record_common_node (was: [PR lto/77458] Avoid ICE in offloading with differing _FloatN, _FloatNx types)

Hi Richard! On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:25:01 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:18:35 +0200, Richard Biener > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Thomas Schwinge >

basic_block flags, BB_VISITED

Hi! After the "Add Early VRP" GCC trunk commit r240291 (Kugan CC for your information), I've been observing all kinds of OpenACC offloading failures. I now figured out what's going on. The "evrp" pass uses basic_block's BB_VISITED flag. It first clears these all, gcc/tree-vrp.c:execute_early_vr

Clear basic block flags before using BB_VISITED for OpenACC loops processing (was: basic_block flags, BB_VISITED)

ase appropriate (which would have caught this issue right away), in particular the dg-final scan-tree-dump line? commit 4e8abdfd25aa08abbad0c3fe2e9ec6182308f78c Author: Thomas Schwinge Date: Mon Oct 17 11:29:43 2016 +0200 Clear basic block flags before using BB_VISITED for OpenACC loops processin

Re: Clear basic block flags before using BB_VISITED for OpenACC loops processing

Hi! On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:22:17 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:06:59 +0200, Richard Biener > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > >>

Re: Clear basic block flags before using BB_VISITED for OpenACC loops processing

Hi! On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:08:44 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:22:17 +0200, Richard Biener > > wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Schwinge > >> wrote:

Re: Explicitly list all tree codes in gcc/tree-streamer.c:record_common_node

Hi! On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:47:56 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:25:01 +0200, Richard Biener > > wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Schwinge > >> wrote:

Re: [PR lto/77458] Avoid ICE in offloading with differing _FloatN, _FloatNx types

Hi! Ping. On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:18:00 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:25:01 +0200, Richard Biener > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Schwinge > > wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:18:35 +0200, Richard Biener > >

Re: Clear basic block flags before using BB_VISITED for OpenACC loops processing

Hi! On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:38:50 +0200, I wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:08:44 +0200, Richard Biener > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Schwinge > > wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:22:17 +0200, Richard Biener > > > wrote: > > &

[PR tree-optimization/78024] Clear basic block flags before using BB_VISITED for OpenACC loops processing

Hi! On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:07:13 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > > can I at > > least commit the OpenACC loops processing fix? Here is the latest > > version, simplified after your r241296 IRA vs. BB_VIS

Re: [PR lto/77458] Avoid ICE in offloading with differing _FloatN, _FloatNx types

Hi! On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:59:16 +0200, I wrote: > On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:18:00 +0200, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:25:01 +0200, Richard Biener > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Schwinge > > > wrote: > &

Re: Support to OpenACC and OpenMP 4.0 in GCC 4.9

Hi Paolo! On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:09:01 +0200, Paolo Leoni wrote: > I'm a graduating Physics student from Italy. I'm actually working on > accelerators devices like GPU and Intel MIC, with a focus on OpenACC > api. Are you primarily a user of OpenACC, or also interested in helping implement it in

Re: Support to OpenACC and OpenMP 4.0 in GCC 4.9

Hi Paolo! On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:31:15 +0200, Paolo Leoni wrote: > I'm primarily a user of OpenACC. Be aware that there is not yet any actual offloading implemented on the gomp-4_0-branch. > Sorry, I'm a little newbie about GCC building, could you post here a > simple list of commands in order

OpenMP: Lowering to builtin function calls in the front ends, instead of creating trivial tree nodes?

Hi! While working on some OpenACC constructs in the C front end (notably those tagged as »Executable Directives«, OpenACC 2.0, 2.12), Jim has noticed that for a certain class of OpenMP constructs (corresponding in "style" to the OpenACC Executable Directives), these are directly lowered to builtin

Re: Offload Library

Hi! On Fri, 16 May 2014 15:47:58 +0400, Kirill Yukhin wrote: > To support the offloading features for Intel's Xeon Phi cards > we need to add a foreign library (liboffload) into the gcc repository. As written in the README, this library currently is specific to Intel hardware (understan

Re: [RFC] Offloading Support in libgomp

Hi! On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:29:30 +0400, "Michael V. Zolotukhin" wrote: > [patch for adding plugins support in libgomp] One question: > --- a/libgomp/target.c > +++ b/libgomp/target.c > +/* This functions scans folder, specified in environment variable > + LIBGOMP_PLUGIN_PATH, and loads all

Re: [RFC] Offloading Support in libgomp

Hi! On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:37:12 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 04:30:15PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > 2014-07-17 11:51 GMT+04:00 Thomas Schwinge : > > >> + plugin_path = getenv ("LIBGOMP_PLUGIN_PATH"); > > > > > >

Re: [RFC] Offloading Support in libgomp

Hi! On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:58:04 +0200, I wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:37:12 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 04:30:15PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > > 2014-07-17 11:51 GMT+04:00 Thomas Schwinge : > > > >> + plugin_pa

Re: [RFC] Offloading Support in libgomp

Hi! On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:35:36 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 03:09:32PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > But I'm not yet sure how we could use this to tie the libgomp plugin > > > search path to the location of libgomp.so... Especially, giv

Re: [gomp4] Offloading wiki page

Hi! On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:06:19 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 07/21/2014 09:07 PM, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > I've created a wiki page about offloading. Any improvements are welcome. Guys, thanks for setting this up so quickly! > It says "Immutable Page", so I can't seem to edit it. Probably

Re: [gomp4] Offloading wiki page

Hi! On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:30:55 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 07/22/2014 01:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:06:19 +0200, Bernd Schmidt > wrote: > >> It says "Immutable Page", so I can't seem to edit it. > > > &g

libstdc++ testsuite "misbehaving"

Hi! Updating my GCC trunk working tree from r212389 (2014-07-09) to r214918 (2014-09-04), I notice that (only) in libstdc++ testing, and only for the second multilib of »RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{,-m32\}'« (so, the 32-bit x86 one), a lot of PASSes "disappear" (compile tests only?). Has a

Re: ASAN test failures make compare_tests useless

Hi! On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:17:53 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 18 August 2014 16:34, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Yury Gribov wrote: > >> On 08/18/2014 09:42 AM, Yury Gribov wrote: > >>> > >>> On 08/16/2014 04:37 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >

Re: Implementing OpenACC's Fortran module

Hi! On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:57:53 +0200, I wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:05:22 +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > > James Norris wrote: > > > I think the files are ready for upstream submitting unless you can > > > think of other things > > > that should done. Yes? No? > > > > What do you mean by u

Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?

Hi! As has been noted before, , GCC's MAINTAINERS file does not list a maintainer for libcilkrts, or GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally. Shouldn't it? I regularely consult this file when

Re: Implementing OpenACC's Fortran module

Hi Tobias! On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 13:51:58 +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > On 19.09.2014 11:03, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Regarding linking the object file produced by Fortran openacc.f90 into > > libgomp: (with the version that Jim already has internally checked in) > > I f

RE: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?

Hi! On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:02:30 +, "Zamyatin, Igor" wrote: > Jeff Law wrote: > > The original plan was for Balaji to take on this role; however, his > > assignment > > within Intel has changed and thus he's not going to have time to work on > > Cilk+ anymore. > > > > Igor Zamyatin has bee

Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?

Hi! On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:00:19 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:56:06PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:02:30 +, "Zamyatin, Igor" > > wrote: > > > Jeff Law wrote: > > > > The original plan was

Re: Contributing to GCC

Hi! On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:12:07 +0200, Krzesimir Nowak wrote: > My name is Krzesimir Nowak and I'd like to try my hand at contributing > to gcc in my free time. Great, and welcome! > To start learning a workflow I started with something easy - 42014. As this is one of the issues listed on

libgomp: "GNU OpenMP Runtime Library" (was: [PATCH 1/5] OpenACC 2.0 support for libgomp - OpenACC runtime, NVidia PTX/CUDA plugin (repost))

Hi! On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:06:26 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 01:53:23PM +, Julian Brown wrote: > > --- a/libgomp/configure.ac > > +++ b/libgomp/configure.ac > > @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@ > > # aclocal -I ../config && autoconf && autoheader && automake > > > > AC_PREREQ(2.6

"openacc" Bugzilla keyword (was: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end)

61f-82ee72b054a4 --- libgomp/ChangeLog.gomp | 5 + libgomp/libgomp.texi | 5 +++-- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git libgomp/ChangeLog.gomp libgomp/ChangeLog.gomp index a5a58a0..492393b 100644 --- libgomp/ChangeLog.gomp +++ libgomp/ChangeLog.gomp @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@

libgomp: Now known as the GNU Offloading and Multi Processing Runtime Library (was: libgomp: "GNU OpenMP Runtime Library")

is mirrored from the @uref{http://code.google.com/@/p/@/go/, master Go repository}. @item libgomp -The GNU OpenMP runtime library. +The GNU Offloading and Multi Processing Runtime Library. @item libiberty The @code{libiberty} library, used for portability and for some diff --git gcc/fortran

Re: libgomp: Now known as the GNU Offloading and Multi Processing Runtime Library (was: libgomp: "GNU OpenMP Runtime Library")

Hi! On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:21:46 +0100, I wrote: > On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 15:43:06 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 21:30 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 03:22:21PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 14:47 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wro

[GSoC] Google Summer of Code 2015?

Hi! I can't remember this being discussed: if the GCC community would like to participate in this year's Google Summer of Code -- the organization application period will end tomorrow, ,

Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?

Hi! On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:39:44 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 02/23/15 14:41, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:56:06PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:02:30 +,

Re: Offloading GSOC 2015

Hi! On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 16:16:21 +0100, guray ozen wrote: > I finished my master at Barcelona Supercomputing Center and i started > to do PhD. My master thesis code generation OpenMP 4.0 for GPU > accelerators. And i am still working on it. > > Last year i presented my research compiler MACC at I

Re: SPIR-V and GCC

Hi! On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:23:21 + (UTC), BogDan wrote: > > This http://www.g-truc.net/post-0714.html great article explans better > > what SPIR-V is. Note that I don't know anything about SPIR-V, and I'm currently too busy to learn about it, but: > I checked them a little bit and I'm afraid

Re: nvptx-tools on ARM

Hi! On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 11:22:13 +0100, Enrico Calore wrote: > I would like to try GCC 5 with nvptx-tools on a NVIDIA Jetson board > (armhf architecture), may I ask to you if it is supposed to work on that > architecture? We have not tried this. To enable offloading for ARM targets, you'll need

RE: Proposal for adding splay_tree_find (to find elements without updating the nodes).

Hi! On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 22:28:41 +, Aditya K wrote: > So I have modified the patch to use hash_map instead of std::map. The patch > is attached. > > However, I got one regression after that. > > # Comparing directories > ## Dir1=../build-pristine/: 11 sum files > ## Dir2=../build-test/: 11

Re: broken link for Programming Languages Software Award on gcc homepage

Hi! On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:31:59 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote: > the link for 'ACM SIGPLAN Programming Languages Software Award' in the news > list > on gcc.gnu.org is http://www.sigplan.org/node/231, as discussed here ( > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-06/msg00136.html ). > > Following the lin

Re: fn spec attribute on builtin function in fortran

to be a combination of ATTRS2 and FNSPEC. + In this file, we use the ATTRS field, and in gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c, we use + ATTRS2 and FNSPEC instead. */ +#undef DEF_GOACC_BUILTIN_FNSPEC +#define DEF_GOACC_BUILTIN_FNSPEC(ENUM, NAME, TYPE, ATTRS, ATTRS2, FNSPEC) \ + DEF_GOACC_BUILTIN(ENUM, NAME,

[gomp4] Basic -misa support for nvptx (was: How to use old GPU (Fermi) in gcc with OpenACC?)

Hi! On Sat, 9 May 2015 10:26:22 -0700, Satoshi_OHSHIMA wrote: > I'm trying to use and evaluate gcc with OpenACC on some NVIDIA GPUs. > I succeeded to build gcc with OpenACC by using > http://scelementary.com/2015/04/25/openacc-in-gcc.html as a reference. Heh, their build instructions very much

Re: Thomas Schwinge appointed OpenACC Maintainer

Hi! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:11:36 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has > appointed Thomas Schwinge as OpenACC Maintainer. Thanks for your trust, after all these years. I'm happy to accept, and will of course (continue to) w

Can support TRUNC_DIV_EXPR, TRUNC_MOD_EXPR in GCC vectorization/scalar evolution -- and/or linearization?

Hi! I'm for the first time looking into the existing vectorization functionality in GCC (yay!), and with that I'm also for the first time encountering GCC's scalar evolution (scev) machinery (yay!), and the chains of recurrences (chrec) used by that (yay!). Obviously, I'm right now doing my own r

"match.pd" (was: Can support TRUNC_DIV_EXPR, TRUNC_MOD_EXPR in GCC vectorization/scalar evolution -- and/or linearization?)

Hi! Thanks for all your comments already! I continued looked into this for a bit (but then got interrupted by a higher-priority task). Regarding this one specifically: On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:14:11 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > Hmm,

OpenACC 2.6 "host_data" construct, "if_present" clause

Hi Jakub! OpenACC 2.6 adds a new clause to the "host_data" construct: 2.8.3. "if_present clause". Gergő (in CC) is working on that. When an 'if_present' clause appears on the directive, the compiler will only change the address of any variable or array which appears in _var-list_ tha

For OpenACC libgomp entry points, redefine the "int device" argument to "unsigned int flags" (was: OpenACC 2.6 "host_data" construct, "if_present" clause)

re, the idea doesn't actually seem so bad anymore. :-) Just don't think of it as 'merging stuff into "int device"', but rather 'for OpenACC libgomp entry points, redefine the "int device" argument to "unsigned int flags"' -- see attache

Re: For OpenACC libgomp entry points, redefine the "int device" argument to "unsigned int flags"

Hi Jakub! On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:38:38 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:46:06PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > Or, I had the idea that we could avoid that, instead continue using > > > "GOMP_MAP_USE_DEVICE_PTR", and transmit th

For libgomp OpenACC entry points, redefine the "device" argument to "flags"

Hi Jakub! On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:18:12 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 03:03:42PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:59:54PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > Right. For OpenACC, there's no "device" clause

Re: For libgomp OpenACC entry points, redefine the "device" argument to "flags"

Hi! On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 22:56:05 +0100, I wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:18:12 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 03:03:42PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:59:54PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > Right. F

FOSDEM 2019

Hi! Anybody going to visit FOSDEM in Bruxelles, Belgium this weekend, ? I'll be there, and happy to meet up, of course! On Sunday, I'll be giving a presentation in the HPC, Big Data and Data Science devroom: "Speeding up Programs with OpenACC in GCC",

[9/10 Regression] [PR87833] Intel MIC (emulated) offloading still broken (was: GCC 9.0.1 Status Report (2019-04-25))

Hi! On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 20:38:21 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > branches/gcc-9-branch has > been created; GCC 9.1-rc1 will be built and announced likely tomorrow. Yay! \o/ I just again want to point to '[9/10 Regression] Intel MIC (emulated) offloading: "relocati

Re: [9/10 Regression] [PR87833] Intel MIC (emulated) offloading still broken (was: GCC 9.0.1 Status Report (2019-04-25))

Hi! Email to apparently is no longer gets delivered. Is there anyone else from Intel who'd take over maintenance? Grüße Thomas On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:37:17 +0200, I wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 20:38:21 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > branches/gcc-9-branch has > > been created; GC

  1   2   3   >