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~
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
ptx doesn't have indirect jumps, so CODE_FOR_indirect_jump may not be
defined. Add a sorry.
Bernd
gcc/
* optabs.c (emit_indirect_jump): Test HAVE_indirect_jump and emit a
sorry if necessary.
Index: gcc/optabs.c
===
12 matches
Mail list logo
