From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 121951 invoked by alias); 3 Aug 2015 12:00:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 121934 invoked by uid 89); 3 Aug 2015 12:00:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 12:00:41 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1ZMEQ1-000065-Qe from Nathan_Sidwell@mentor.com for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 05:00:37 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 05:00:37 -0700 Subject: Re: [gomp4] expand acc_on_device earlier To: Thomas Schwinge , GCC Patches References: <55BEC292.6050300@acm.org> <874mkgob6j.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> From: Nathan Sidwell Message-ID: <55BF57E4.3050005@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 12:00:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <874mkgob6j.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 On 08/03/15 07:37, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 21:23:30 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >> I've committed this to gomp4 branch. It expands the acc_on_device builtin >> earlier in the new oacc_xform pass. This will allow more optimization earlier on. > > Thanks! > >> The existing expansion point now only needs to deal with the host-side case. > > Actually, no; committed to gomp-4_0-branch in r226498: Please clarify. This suggests a logic fault elsewhere. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell