[PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly Elemental functions) for C

[Iyer, Balaji V]

Hi Aldy,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:aldyh@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:27 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: RE: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
> Elemental functions) for C
> 
> Can you investigate why it is creating multiple clones?
> 

I can and will let you know as soon as I find it. I am working on GOMP4 branch, could that cause anything? 

Just out of curiosity, why can't I keep it as-is? It is giving the correct output/behavior and doesn't seem to interfere with anything else. The only extra thing I am doing is to add an extra if-statement while recursing through all the functions to check for cilk simd function and then calling the function to handle it, which the OMP will have to do anyway. The only extra thing I added was an extra if-statement.

Please don't read my above paragraph as an argument. I am just asking for clarification and to understand more about the underlying routines.

Thanks,

Balaji V. Iyer.

> On Dec 11, 2013 10:06 AM, "Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji.v.iyer@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:ald
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:aldyh@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:38 PM
> > To: Iyer, Balaji V
> > Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> > Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
> > Elemental functions) for C
> >
> > On 12/11/13 09:31, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> > >> owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Aldy Hernandez
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:03 PM
> > >> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> > >> Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
> > >> Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions
> > >> (formerly Elemental functions) for C
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>> But aren't both OpenMP and Cilk Plus simd clones marked as "omp
> > >>>> declare simd"?  In which case you shouldn't have to do anything?
> > >>>> Are the Cilk Plus clones not being marked as "omp declare simd"
> > >>>> in the front-ends?
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ....Didn't you mention in this thread
> > >>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03506.html) that
> > >>> Cilk Plus SIMD-enabled functions must be marked as "cilk plus
> elementals"
> > >>> (as it wsa called then)? Did I misunderstand you?
> > >>
> > >> Both OpenMP and Cilk Plus clones should be marked with "omp declare
> > >> simd".  But Cilk Plus should _also_ be marked with "cilk plus
> > >> elementals" (or "cilk simd function" now).  In which case the
> > >> aforementioned function doesn't require any changes because Cilk
> > >> Plus clones will be seen as they are marked with "omp declare simd".
> > >>
> > >> So...
> > >>
> > >> 	OpenMP declare simd gets tagged as:
> > >> 		"omp declare simd"
> > >> 	Cilk Plus vector functions gets tagged as:
> > >> 		"omp declare simd"
> > >> 		"cilk simd function"
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ok, so you want the same clauses included in both omp declare simd
> > > and
> > cilk simd function tree lists?
> > >
> > > For example in the c-parser.c, I have something like this:
> > >
> > >        if (is_cilkplus_cilk_simd_fn)
> > >          c = build_tree_list (get_identifier ("cilk simd function"), c);
> > >        else
> > >          c = build_tree_list (get_identifier ("omp declare simd"), c);
> > >        TREE_CHAIN (c) = DECL_ATTRIBUTES (fndecl);
> > >        DECL_ATTRIBUTES (fndecl) = c;
> > >
> > >
> > > You want to change it something like this?
> > >
> > >
> > > If (is_cilkplus_cilk_simd_fn)
> > >    {
> > > 	tree c_cilk = build_tree_list (get_identifier ("cilk simd function"), c);
> > > 	TREE_CHAIN (c_cilk) = DECL_ATTRIBUTES (fndecl);
> > > 	DECL_ATTRIBUTES (fndecl) = c_cilk;
> > > }
> > > c = build_tree_list (get_identififer ("omp declare simd"), c);
> > > TREE_CHAIN (c) =DECL_ATTRIBUTES (fndecl); DECL_ATTRIBUTES (fndecl)
> =
> > > c;
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes.
> 
> The issue with doing this is that it is creating duplicate clones. If I just kept the
> patch as is, it does not.
> 
> For example:
> 
> __attribute__((vector (vectorlength(sizeof(int))))) int func3 (int x) {
>   return x;
> }
> 
> Should create two clones: mask and unmask (_ZGVbN4v_func3 and
> _ZGVbM4v_func3). It is doing that if I kept the patch AS-IS.
> 
> Now, if I make the modification that I mentioned above and remove the
> handling of cilk simd function in omp-low.c it is creating  6 clones:
> _ZGVdM4v_func3, _ZGVbN4v_func3, _ZGVcN4v_func3, _ZGVcM4v_func3,
> _ZGVdN4v_func3
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Balaji V. Iyer.