Re: [gomp4] lock/unlock internal fn

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>]

On 09/23/15 10:16, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi Nathan!
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:40:51 -0400, Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On 09/23/15 05:27, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:30:16 -0400, Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org> wrote:
>>>> I've committed this patch to add a new pair of internal functions.  These will
>>>> be used in implementing reductions.
>>>>
>>>> They'll be emitted around reduction finalization, and implement the locking
>>>> required for the general case of combining reduction values.  They may be
>>>> transformed in the oacc_xform pass, and the default behaviour is to delete them,
>>>> if there is no RTL expander.  For PTX we delete them if they are at the vector
>>>> level.
>>>>
>>>> This avoids needing machine-specific builtins to expand to, and thus should
>>>> result in less backend code duplication.
>>>
>>> With the __builtin_nvptx_lock and __builtin_nvptx_unlock builtins
>>> removed, should the gcc.target/nvptx/spinlock-1.c and
>>> gcc.target/nvptx/spinlock-2.c test cases then be removed, too, or should
>>> these be re-written differently?
>>
>> confused.  I don't think I remoced those locks.  Certainly didn't intend to, and
>> I would have expected massive test fails if I had.
>
> You didn't remove the functionality, but you did remove the
> __builtin_nvptx_lock and __builtin_nvptx_unlock builtins (which the two
> test cases were written for), replacing them with GOACC_LOCK/GOACC_UNLOCK
> internal functions, nvptx_expand_oacc_lock_unlock.

ah, thanks. I expect even these are going to go away soon. the spinlock 
testcases should be removed.

nathan

-- 
Nathan Sidwell