Re: The nvptx port [10/11+] Target files

[Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com>]

On 10/30/2014 12:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> A "nit" -- Richard S. recently removed the need to include the "enum"
> for "enum machine_mode".  I believe he had a script to handle the
> mundane parts of that change.  Please make sure to update the nvptx port
> to conform to that new convention, obviously feel free to use the script
> if you want.
>
> You may need to update with James Greenhalgh's changes to
> MOVE_BY_PIECES_P and friends.

Ok, I'll look into those.

> With those two issues addressed as needed, this is OK for the trunk.

Thanks! I've pinged some of the preliminary patches that went unapproved 
up to this point.

One leftover issue, discussed in the [0/11] mail - what amount of 
documentation is appropriate for this, given that we don't want to 
support using this as anything other than an offload compiler? Should I 
still add all the standard invoke.texi/gccint.texi pieces?

> I notice that you've got some OpenMP bits (write_as_kernel).  Are y'all
> doing any testing with OpenMP or is that an artifact of layering OpenACC
> on top of the OpenMP infrastructure?

The distinction between .kernel and .func is really not to do with 
either - only .kernels are callable from the host, and only .funcs are 
callable from within ptx code.


Bernd