On 05/11/16 12:02, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
I conceptually agree to that. (If we're serious about that, then we can
remove more code, such as the legacy libgomp entry point itself -- a
"missing symbol: [...]" is still vaguely better than a SIGSEGV.) Yet,
what I fixed here, is just what Jakub and
On 05/11/2016 06:02 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
I conceptually agree to that. (If we're serious about that, then we can
remove more code, such as the legacy libgomp entry point itself -- a
"missing symbol: [...]" is still vaguely better than a SIGSEGV.) Yet,
what I fixed here, is just what Jakub
Hi!
On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:38:39 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 05/11/16 10:22, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 05/11/2016 03:46 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> >>> What we now got, doesn't work, for several reasons. GCC 5 OpenACC
> >>> offloading executables will just run into SIGSEGV.
> >
> > I'm
On 05/11/16 10:22, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 05/11/2016 03:46 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
What we now got, doesn't work, for several reasons. GCC 5 OpenACC
offloading executables will just run into SIGSEGV.
I'm tempted to say, let's just wait until someone actually reports that in
bugzilla. Offl
On 05/11/2016 03:46 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
What we now got, doesn't work, for several reasons. GCC 5 OpenACC
offloading executables will just run into SIGSEGV.
I'm tempted to say, let's just wait until someone actually reports that
in bugzilla. Offloading in gcc-5 was broken enough that I
Hi!
Ping.
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 13:35:28 +0200, I wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:38:57 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > On 09/24/15 04:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > Iff GCC 5 compiled offloaded OpenACC/PTX code will always do host fallback
> > > anyway because of the incompatible PTX version
>
