Re: [PATCH] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-04-28 Thread Jeff Law
On 04/28/2017 08:31 AM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: On 2017-04-25 09:30 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: Given Richi's general agreement around the in_lto_p, let's go with the patch on the trunk only. Should I prepare (re-diff) a patch for current trunk? If you want for the trunk, yes. If you get positive fe

Re: [PATCH] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-04-28 Thread Xi Ruoyao
On 2017-04-25 09:30 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > Given Richi's general agreement around the in_lto_p, let's go with the  > patch on the trunk only. Should I prepare (re-diff) a patch for current trunk? > If you get positive feedback from Jan, then this can be backported to  > gcc-7 after it's been o

Re: [PATCH] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-04-25 Thread Jeff Law
On 04/14/2017 06:44 PM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: On 2017-04-14 15:00 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote: On 2017-04-13 09:05 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: Did you verify LTO bootstrap still works with the patch? I've just done a LTO bootstrapp (boarding a train :) ). It works with my patch. I've done dejagnu t

Re: [PATCH] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-04-14 Thread Xi Ruoyao
On 2017-04-14 15:00 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > On 2017-04-13 09:05 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > Did you verify LTO bootstrap still works with the patch? > > I've just done a LTO bootstrapp (boarding a train :) ).  > It works with my patch. I've done dejagnu tests in lto.exp and built a Linu

Re: [PATCH] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-04-14 Thread Xi Ruoyao
On 2017-04-13 09:05 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > Did you verify LTO bootstrap still works with the patch? I've just done a LTO bootstrapp (boarding a train :) ).  It works with my patch. -- Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University

Re: [PATCH] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-04-13 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 04/07/2017 08:02 AM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: >> >> On 2017-04-06 11:12 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> >>> With the likely deprecation in mind, I've only done a cursory review of >>> the changes -- mostly to verify that they hit Cilk+ paths only. >> >> >>>

Re: [PATCH] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-04-12 Thread Jeff Law
On 04/07/2017 08:02 AM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: On 2017-04-06 11:12 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: With the likely deprecation in mind, I've only done a cursory review of the changes -- mostly to verify that they hit Cilk+ paths only. What's the purpose behind changing when we set the in_lto_p flag? With

Re: [PATCH] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-04-07 Thread Xi Ruoyao
On 2017-04-06 11:12 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > With the likely deprecation in mind, I've only done a cursory review of  > the changes -- mostly to verify that they hit Cilk+ paths only. > What's the purpose behind changing when we set the in_lto_p flag? Without that change, GCC with my patch ICEed

Re: [PATCH] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-04-06 Thread Jeff Law
On 03/31/2017 07:50 AM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: Hi, I''ve sent this patch once (). But I haven't got any response. I'd like to resend it instead of pinging, and explain it more. There's a couple things going on here. Cilk+ does not currentl