From: Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
To: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: Tobias Burnus <tobias@codesourcery.com>,
Hongtao Liu <hongtao.liu@intel.com>, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: Remove support for Intel MIC offloading (was: [PATCH] Remove dead code.)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 16:12:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ri64js5bet4.fsf@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C9B594E9-0088-4DFC-84D3-FC8AA79920BE@suse.de>
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 20 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Am 20.10.2022 um 14:41 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:33:28PM +0000, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This had been done in
>>>> wwwdocs commit 5c7ecfb5627e412a3d142d8dc212f4cd39b3b73f
>>>> "Document deprecation of OpenMP MIC offloading in GCC 12".
>>>>
>>>> I'm sad about this, because -- in theory -- such a plugin is very useful
>>>> for offloading simulation/debugging (separate host/device memory spaces,
>>>> allow sanitizers to run on offloaded code
>>>
>>> Yeah, I think that's a _very_ useful feature, but indeed ...
>>>
>>>> (like LLVM a while ago
>>>> implemented), and so on), but all that doesn't help -- in practice -- if
>>>> nobody is maintaining that code.
>>>
>>> ... it should then be somewhat maintained properly. Maybe the
>>> MIC-specifics could be removed from the code, and it could be transformed
>>> into a "null"-offload target, as example and testing vehicle (and implying
>>> that such new liboffloadmic^H^H^Hnull would have its upstream in the GCC
>>> repo). Alas, if noone is going to do that work removing is the right
>>> choice.
>>
>> Yeah. But we really shouldn't need a large MIC specific library for that,
>> everything should be implementable with a simple portable plugin that just
>> forks + execs the offloading ELF and transfers data to/out of it etc.
>> And the config/i386/intelmic-mkoffload etc. stuff would need to be done
>> somewhere in generic code, such that we can do it for all targets.
>> Also ideally by using just the normal lto1 with some special option that
>> it acts as an offloading compiler, so that we don't need to bother with
>> building a separate offloading compiler for it.
>> True, everything guarded with #ifdef ACCEL_COMPILER etc. would need to
>> change into code guarded with some option.
>
> Might be a nice GSoC project …
>
I really think it could be. Would any one of those involved in this
thread be willing to mentor it?
Thanks,
Martin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-01 15:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-08 8:45 [PATCH] Remove dead code Martin Liška
2021-11-08 8:59 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-11-08 14:19 ` Jeff Law
2021-11-12 14:27 ` Martin Liška
2021-11-12 14:41 ` H.J. Lu
2021-11-12 14:44 ` Martin Liška
2021-11-12 15:00 ` H.J. Lu
2021-11-12 19:14 ` Richard Biener
2021-11-12 19:18 ` H.J. Lu
2021-11-12 19:52 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-20 11:15 ` Remove support for Intel MIC offloading (was: [PATCH] Remove dead code.) Thomas Schwinge
2022-10-20 11:34 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-11-04 10:05 ` GCC 13: OpenMP offloading to Intel MIC has been removed (was: Remove support for Intel MIC offloading) Thomas Schwinge
2022-11-04 10:36 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-20 12:33 ` Remove support for Intel MIC offloading (was: [PATCH] Remove dead code.) Michael Matz
2022-10-20 12:40 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-20 13:09 ` Richard Biener
2023-02-01 15:12 ` Martin Jambor [this message]
2023-02-02 21:13 ` GSoC project idea: Separate Host Process Offloading (was: Remove support for Intel MIC offloading) Thomas Schwinge
2023-02-07 23:26 ` GSoC project idea: Separate Host Process Offloading Thomas Schwinge
2023-02-08 7:47 ` Tobias Burnus
2022-10-20 20:56 ` Remove support for Intel MIC offloading Thomas Schwinge
2022-11-04 9:54 ` Thomas Schwinge
2022-11-04 10:30 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-11-04 10:35 ` Thomas Schwinge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ri64js5bet4.fsf@suse.cz \
--to=mjambor@suse.cz \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hongtao.liu@intel.com \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=matz@suse.de \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
--cc=thomas@codesourcery.com \
--cc=tobias@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).