Re: The nvptx port [1/11+] indirect jumps

2014-11-04 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/04/2014 04:32 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/20/2014 04:19 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> ptx doesn't have indirect jumps, so CODE_FOR_indirect_jump may not be >> defined. Add a sorry. > > Looking back through all the mails it turns out this one wasn't approved yet. > Ping? Ok. r~

Re: The nvptx port [1/11+] indirect jumps

2014-11-04 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 10/20/2014 04:19 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: ptx doesn't have indirect jumps, so CODE_FOR_indirect_jump may not be defined. Add a sorry. Looking back through all the mails it turns out this one wasn't approved yet. Ping? Bernd

Re: The nvptx port [1/11+] indirect jumps

2014-10-22 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:02:16PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > I'm not sure that's what you're suggesting, but at least on non-shared > > memory offloading devices, you can't switch arbitrarily between > > offloading device(s) and host-fallback, for you have to do data > > management between t

Re: The nvptx port [1/11+] indirect jumps

2014-10-22 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:18:49 +0200, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Bernd Schmidt >> wrote: >> > On 10/21/2014 11:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> >> >> At least for OpenMP, the best would be if th

Re: The nvptx port [1/11+] indirect jumps

2014-10-22 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:18:49 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Bernd Schmidt > wrote: > > On 10/21/2014 11:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> > >> At least for OpenMP, the best would be if the #pragma omp target regions > >> and/or #pragma omp declare target fu

Re: The nvptx port [1/11+] indirect jumps

2014-10-22 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:18:49AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Bernd Schmidt > wrote: > > On 10/21/2014 11:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> > >> At least for OpenMP, the best would be if the #pragma omp target regions > >> and/or #pragma omp declare target fun

Re: The nvptx port [1/11+] indirect jumps

2014-10-22 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/21/2014 11:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> At least for OpenMP, the best would be if the #pragma omp target regions >> and/or #pragma omp declare target functions contain anything a particular >> offloading accelerator can't handle,

Re: The nvptx port [1/11+] indirect jumps

2014-10-21 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 10/21/2014 11:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: At least for OpenMP, the best would be if the #pragma omp target regions and/or #pragma omp declare target functions contain anything a particular offloading accelerator can't handle, instead of failing the whole compilation perhaps just emit some at l

Re: The nvptx port [1/11+] indirect jumps

2014-10-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:00:35PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/21/2014 08:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > >>* optabs.c (emit_indirect_jump): Test HAVE_indirect_jump and emit a > >>sorry if necessary. > >So doesn't this imply no hot-cold partitioning since we use indirect > >jumps to get ac

Re: The nvptx port [1/11+] indirect jumps

2014-10-21 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 10/21/2014 08:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote: * optabs.c (emit_indirect_jump): Test HAVE_indirect_jump and emit a sorry if necessary. So doesn't this imply no hot-cold partitioning since we use indirect jumps to get across the partition? Similarly doesn't this imply other missing features (se

Re: The nvptx port [1/11+] indirect jumps

2014-10-21 Thread Jeff Law
On 10/20/14 14:19, Bernd Schmidt wrote: ptx doesn't have indirect jumps, so CODE_FOR_indirect_jump may not be defined. Add a sorry. Bernd 001-indjumps.diff gcc/ * optabs.c (emit_indirect_jump): Test HAVE_indirect_jump and emit a sorry if necessary. So doesn't this im