On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:01:45PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Thanks! I will extract and check in the Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C work.
This broke bootstrap on i686-linux, fixed thusly, committed as obvious:
2013-10-30 Jakub Jelinek
* cilk.c (create_cilk_helper_decl): Use HOST
hat.com)
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and
> C++)
>
> On 10/22/13 10:22, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > Hi Jeff, I have attached 2 patches - 1 for C and 1 for C++ - along
> > with the changelogs (Change
On 10/22/13 10:22, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hi Jeff, I have attached 2 patches - 1 for C and 1 for C++ - along
with the changelogs (ChangeLog.cilkplus for C and common changes,
cp-ChangeLog.cilkplus for C++ specific files) with the changes you
have requested. Answers to your questions are given bel
[PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and
> C++)
>
> On 10/23/13 13:46, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Can you take a look at calls.c::special_function_p and determine if
> >>>> we need
> >> to
> >>>>
On 10/23/13 13:46, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Can you take a look at calls.c::special_function_p and
determine if we need
to
do something special for spawn here?
I will look into it and let you know.
Any word on this?
Hi Jeff, I looked into this function and from what I can tell, it is
used
>
> >> Can you take a look at calls.c::special_function_p and determine if we need
> to
> >> do something special for spawn here?
> >>
> >
> > I will look into it and let you know.
> Any word on this?
>
Hi Jeff,
I looked into this function and from what I can tell, it is used to
mark ce
On 10/16/13 15:49, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
In ira.c:
+ /* We need a frame pointer for all Cilk Plus functions that use
+ Cilk keywords. */
+ || (flag_enable_cilkplus && cfun->is_cilk_function)
Can you explain to me a bit more why you need a frame pointer? I'm trying to
determ
On 09/11/13 12:18, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Everyone, Couple weeks back, I had submitted a patch for review
that will implement Cilk keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) into
the C compiler. I recently finished C++ implementation also. In this
email, I am attaching 2 patches: 1 for C (and the
On 10/18/13 15:06, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
The main reason why I made it volatile (as expressed by the volatil
bool variable) is that I want to make sure these values aren't
optimized by the compiler and the value is fetched from memory on
every access. I have added an explanation to the header co
On 10/18/13 15:06, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hi Jeff, Please see my comments below. Also, I am adding all these
changes to the files as you requested in my local directory. Should I
send you an updated patch along the way?
I'll let you know when I've worked my way through everything. ISTM an
update
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:30 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; r...@redhat.com; Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com); Aldy
> Hernandez (al...@redhat.com)
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and
> C++)
>
> On 09/11/
On 09/11/13 12:18, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Everyone, Couple weeks back, I had submitted a patch for review
that will implement Cilk keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) into
the C compiler. I recently finished C++ implementation also. In this
email, I am attaching 2 patches: 1 for C (and the
l...@redhat.com)
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and
> C++)
>
> On 09/11/13 12:18, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > Hello Everyone, Couple weeks back, I had submitted a patch for review
> > that will implement
On 09/11/13 12:18, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Everyone, Couple weeks back, I had submitted a patch for review
that will implement Cilk keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) into
the C compiler. I recently finished C++ implementation also. In this
email, I am attaching 2 patches: 1 for C (and the
13 7:14 PM
> To: 'r...@redhat.com'; 'Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com)'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy
> Hernandez (al...@redhat.com)'
> Cc: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: [PING]RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C
> (and C
z (al...@redhat.com)
> Cc: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (and
> C++)
>
> Hello,
> Has anyone had a chance to look at this. The C++ part is only a week
> old, but the C part has been in review
On 09/17/2013 08:50 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello, Has anyone had a chance to look at this. The C++ part is only
a week old, but the C part has been in review for ~3 weeks. I would
greatly appreciate if someone could review this and approve for trunk
if it is Ok for trunk.
Obviously not yet.
age-
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:18 PM
> To: r...@redhat.com; Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com); Jeff Law; Aldy
> Hernandez (al...@redhat.com)
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C (a
+ case CILK_SYNC_STMT: +{ + if (!cfun->cilk_frame_decl) +
{ + error_at (input_location, "expected %<_Cilk_spawn%> before
" + "%<_Cilk_sync%>"); + ret = GS_ERROR; +
}
First, surely you have a location you can use, instea
On 08/27/13 16:27, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Aldy, I went through all the emails and here are the major
issues that I could gather (other than lowering the keywords after
gimplification, which I am skipping since it is more of an
optimization for now).
Ok, for now I am fine with delaying hand
On 08/21/13 14:59, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
-Original Message- From: Aldy Hernandez
[mailto:al...@redhat.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:31 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V Cc: r...@redhat.com; Jeff Law;
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords
(_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync
> -Original Message-
> From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:31 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: r...@redhat.com; Jeff Law; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C
>
On 08/21/2013 09:31 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
May I stress again the importance of tests-- which are especially
critical for new language features. You don't want cilk silently
breaking thus rendering all your hard work moot, do you? :))
Agreed. While we don't have a strict policy for testing
Even more review stuff. Are you keeping track of all this Balaji? :)
+ if (warn)
+warning (0, "suspicious use of _Cilk_spawn");
First, as I've mentioned, this error message is very ambiguous. You
should strive to provide better error messages. See my previous comment
on this same lin
Balaji V
> Cc: r...@redhat.com; Jeff Law; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C
>
> [rth, law, jakub: Your input required throughout...please.]
>
> More review stuff...
>
> Overall, I must say, I
[rth, law, jakub: Your input required throughout...please.]
More review stuff...
Overall, I must say, I'm not a big fan of the super early expansion
you're doing right after parsing. I mean, you leave CILK_SPAWN and
CILK_SYNC keywords as is (in tree form until gimplification) but there's
thi
@@ -960,6 +960,7 @@ SCEV_H = tree-scalar-evolution.h $(GGC_H) tree-chrec.h
$(PARAMS_H)
OMEGA_H = omega.h $(PARAMS_H)
TREE_DATA_REF_H = tree-data-ref.h $(OMEGA_H) graphds.h $(SCEV_H)
TREE_INLINE_H = tree-inline.h
+CILK_H = cilk.h
REAL_H = real.h $(MACHMODE_H)
IRA_INT_H = ira.h ira-int.h $(CFG
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 12:52 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Aldy Hernandez; r...@redhat.com; Jeff Law; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Cilk Keywords (_Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync) for C
>
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>
> > +enum add
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> +enum add_variable_type {
Two spaces before '{', should be one.
> +static HOST_WIDE_INT cilk_wrapper_count;
This is HOST_WIDE_INT but you use it later with sprintf with %ld; you need
to use HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC in such a case
> + tree map = (tr
--- gcc/expr.c
+++ gcc/expr.c
@@ -9569,6 +9569,21 @@ expand_expr_real_1 (tree exp, rtx target, enum
machine_mode tmode,
}
return expand_constructor (exp, target, modifier, false);
+case INDIRECT_REF:
+ {
+ tree exp1 = TREE_OPERAND (exp, 0);
+ if (modifier
On 08/06/2013 06:49 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> --- gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c
>> +++ gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c
>> @@ -1433,6 +1433,9 @@ initialize_inline_failed (struct cgraph_edge *e)
>> e->inline_failed = CIF_REDEFINED_EXTERN_INLINE;
>>else if (e->call_stmt_cannot_inline_p)
>> e->i
[Richard, small question for you below].
Not all your changes to Makefile.in have a changelog entry.
+c-family/cilk.o : c-family/cilk.c $(TREE_H) $(SYSTEM_H) $(CONFIG_H)
toplev.h \
+$(TREE_H) coretypes.h tree-iterator.h $(TREE_INLINE_H)
$(CGRAPH_H) \
+ $(DIAGNOSTIC_COR
32 matches
Mail list logo
