This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Questions about LTO infrastructure and pragma omp target
- From: "Michael V. Zolotukhin" <michael dot v dot zolotukhin at gmail dot com>
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Ilya Verbin <iverbin at gmail dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Uday Khedker <uday at cse dot iitb dot ac dot in>, hubicka at ucw dot cz, rth at redhat dot com, kirill dot yukhin at gmail dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:29:56 +0400
- Subject: Re: Questions about LTO infrastructure and pragma omp target
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <4df844f6-f385-4e63-9413-8ea341992b77 at email dot android dot com> <20130823105527 dot GA6976 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <85e37f42-69fe-4bbf-bf1d-f73194e7c444 at email dot android dot com> <20130823123638 dot GL1814 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20130823171514 dot GB6976 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <20130823172347 dot GP1814 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20130903135935 dot GC43295 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <20130903141837 dot GF21876 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <20130903151801 dot GE43295 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <87ioyhhkk9 dot fsf at kepler dot schwinge dot homeip dot net>
Hi Thomas,
> The idea, as we discussed it at the GNU Tools Cauldron's Acceleration
> BoF, is that the host program (for at least some acceleration devices)
> will be responsible for loading the acceleration device's code to the
> device, using some support library that is specific to each acceleration
> device
Unfortunately, I missed the Cauldron, though I'm familiar with the
general idea and now I'm trying to clarify details.
> and for that it is useful to have the the code readily accessible
> in the host program, and thus link it in as "data".
Oh, if we just link the target binary as a data section into the host
binary, then I see no problems in that, it seems absolutely feasible
with the existing infrastructure. I just thought (seemingly it was
incorrect) that we're speaking about linking of target code with the
host code.
> > And the question about multi-target support here still remains open.
>
> Many questions are still open -- but I'm glad there is activity on this
> topic, and I'm sure we'll be able to converge with the designs we have or
> are currently developing.
Thanks, I'm sure in that too:)
Best regards, Michael
> Thomas