This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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

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, instead of failing the whole
>> compilation perhaps just emit some at least by default non-fatal warning
>> and not emit anything for the particular offloading target, which would
>> mean
>> either host fallback, or, if some other offloading target succeeded, just
>> that target.
> I guess a test could be added to mkoffload if gcc were to return a different
> value for a sorry vs. any other compilation failure. The tool could then
> choose not to produce offloading support for that target.

But that would be for the whole file instead of for the specific region?

So maybe we should produce one LTO offload object for each offload
function and make the symbols they are supposed to provide weak
so a fail doesn't end up failing to link the main program?

Looks like this gets somewhat awkward with the LTO setup.


> Bernd

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]