This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
- From: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>
- To: "Iyer\, Balaji V" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>
- Cc: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 12:13:02 -0800
- Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <531B60A4 dot 7050209 at net-b dot de> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1403081927560 dot 7314 at tuna dot site> <BF230D13CA30DD48930C31D4099330003A522CE5 at FMSMSX101 dot amr dot corp dot intel dot com> <531B6E35 dot 3050803 at net-b dot de> <BF230D13CA30DD48930C31D4099330003A524D09 at FMSMSX101 dot amr dot corp dot intel dot com> <87zjl05uo7 dot fsf at tassilo dot jf dot intel dot com>
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> writes:
> "Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji.v.iyer@intel.com> writes:
>>
>> The sentence "Current only..." should be changed to something like this:
>>
>> Currently all the features except _Cilk_for has been implemented.
>
> It would be also good if the documentation mentioned that you have to
> specify -lcilkrts
Also it would be good to specify exactly what parts of Cilk are
supported currently. It's some what hard to figure out.
One trap I ran into (perhaps naively) is that I tried to use
cilk_spawn (as documented in some tutorials) instead of _Cilk_spawn
-Andi