From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 77534 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2015 11:03:31 -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 77520 invoked by uid 89); 6 Nov 2015 11:03:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 11:03:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A86EC05786A; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 11:03:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-4-157.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.4.157]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tA6B3PL1022052; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 06:03:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Merge of HSA branch To: Richard Biener References: <20151105215108.GC9264@virgil.suse.cz> <563C7D2B.6070806@redhat.com> Cc: GCC Patches , Jakub Jelinek , Martin Liska , Michael Matz From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: <563C88FD.3020902@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 11:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg00589.txt.bz2 On 11/06/2015 11:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> >> Realistically we're probably not going to reject this work, but I still want >> to ask whether the approach was acked by the community before you started. I'm >> really not exactly thrilled about having two different classes of backends in >> the compiler, and two different ways of handling offloading. > > Realistically the other approaches werent acked either (well, implicitely > by review). I think the LTO approach was discussed beforehand. As far as I remember (and Jakub may correct me) it was considered for intelmic, and Jakub had considerable input on it. I heard that it came up at the 2013 Cauldron. Writing an rtl backend is the default thing to do for gcc and I would expect any other approach to be discussed beforehand. > Not doing an RTL backend for NVPTX would have simplified > your life as well. I'm not convinced about this. At least I just had to turn off the register allocator, not write a new one. Bernd