This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly Elemental functions) for C
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: "Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>, "'gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 07:17:31 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly Elemental functions) for C
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52A9D58D dot 2040004 at redhat dot com> <BF230D13CA30DD48930C31D4099330003A4B170C at FMSMSX101 dot amr dot corp dot intel dot com> <52AA1C79 dot 6060306 at redhat dot com> <BF230D13CA30DD48930C31D4099330003A4B1ADC at FMSMSX101 dot amr dot corp dot intel dot com> <52AB4673 dot 6060808 at redhat dot com> <BF230D13CA30DD48930C31D4099330003A4B1B3B at FMSMSX101 dot amr dot corp dot intel dot com> <20131216165154 dot GO892 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <BF230D13CA30DD48930C31D4099330003A4B23A0 at FMSMSX101 dot amr dot corp dot intel dot com> <20131216220045 dot GX892 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <BF230D13CA30DD48930C31D4099330003A4B2681 at FMSMSX101 dot amr dot corp dot intel dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:51:14AM +0000, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> I will work on this, but I need a couple clarifications about some of your comments. Please see below:
>
> > > +#define CILK_SIMD_FN_CLAUSE_MASK \
> > > + ( (OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_1 << PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_SIMDLEN)
> > \
> > > + | (OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_1 << PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_LINEAR)
> > \
> > > + | (OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_1 << PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_UNIFORM)
> > \
> > > + | (OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_1 << PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_INBRANCH)
> > \
> > > + | (OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_1 <<
> > PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_NOTINBRANCH))
> >
> > I thought you'd instead add there PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_VECTORLENGTH,
> > PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_MASK and PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_NOMASK (or
> > similar).
> >
>
> I looked at OpenACC implementation and they seem to use the OMP_CLAUSE_* (line # 11174 in c-parser.c)
It uses just PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_NONE, which really means no clauses at all (I
think it is for now).
> Also, If I created CILK_CLAUSE_* variants, I have to re-create another function similar to c_parser_omp_all_clauses, whose workings will be identical to the c_parser_omp_all_clauses. Is that OK with you?
No, I'd remove enum pragma_cilk_clause altogether and fold it into the end of
pragma_omp_clause, as:
PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_VECTORLENGTH,
PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_MASK,
PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_NOMASK,
PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_NONE = PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_NONE,
PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_LINEAR = PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_LINEAR,
PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_PRIVATE = PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_PRIVATE,
PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_FIRSTPRIVATE = PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_FIRSTPRIVATE,
PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_LASTPRIVATE = PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_LASTPRIVATE,
PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_REDUCTION = PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_REDUCTION
so that you can use it in the same bitmasks.
That way, you don't have to change anything in c_parser_omp_all_clauses,
just add handling of the 3 clauses that don't have OpenMP counterparts.
Jakub