From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [gomp] OpenMP IL design notes
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 21:27:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050503212726.GA25846@topo.toronto.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050503211635.GA2927@redhat.com>
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 02:16:35PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:42:47PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > GENERIC
> > GIMPLE
> > GOMP_ATOMIC <expression-statement>
>
> Do we gain anything over expanding this to the approprate __sync_foo
> builtin in the front end.?
>
Can the optimizers tell that this is an atomic builtin? If so,
then no, they're not necessary.
> My intention is to use TLS for this, and to NOT support this feature
> on any system that doesn't support TLS. Thus this bit is synonymous
> with DECL_THREAD_LOCAL.
>
OK, good.
> These shouldn't need gimplification. We should only have decls in
> this list.
>
That's what I thought at first, but the standard threw me into a
loop when it mentioned "id-expression" instead of just
"identifier" in the C++ case. If they're essentially the same,
then great.
> > * CLAUSE default (shared | none)
> >
> > GENERIC This is a boolean field in the GOMP_PARALLEL
> > expression.
> >
> > GIMPLE Same.
>
> IMO this shouldn't escape the front end. We have different requirements
> for Fortran and C. We should require that front ends do all symbol
> resolution and provide GENERIC with a complete list of decls. What
> reaches GENERIC should be equivalent to default(none) -- that is, all
> variables are either (1) declared inside BIND_EXPRs inside the body of
> the block, or (2) mentioned in one of the relevant variable lists.
>
OK, that's certainly simpler.
> #pragma omp for reduction(+: a, b) reduction(*: c, d)
>
> I assume the best option would be a list or vector of operator/variable
> pairs.
>
Yes. I was only referring to a single instance of reduction.
We'd have to have a vector of those.
> Also note that reduction is also legal on for constructs, and that the
> firstprivate, lastprivate, and copyprivate clauses are legal on other
> work sharing constructs.
>
Yes, I tried to express that by putting common clauses in
data_clauses and have the various constructs reference it.
Diego.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-03 21:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-03 20:43 Diego Novillo
2005-05-03 21:05 ` Lars Segerlund
2005-05-03 21:17 ` Diego Novillo
2005-05-04 12:20 ` Biagio Lucini
2005-05-04 13:00 ` Diego Novillo
2005-05-04 13:42 ` Paul Brook
2005-05-04 15:50 ` Biagio Lucini
2005-05-04 15:52 ` Steven Bosscher
2005-05-04 15:56 ` Paul Brook
2005-05-03 21:16 ` Richard Henderson
2005-05-03 21:27 ` Diego Novillo [this message]
2005-05-03 22:59 ` Richard Henderson
2005-05-04 0:38 ` Diego Novillo
2005-05-04 0:24 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2005-05-04 0:37 ` Diego Novillo
2005-05-04 0:48 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2005-05-04 1:18 ` Diego Novillo
2005-05-05 6:57 ` Dmitry Kurochkin
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=20050503212726.GA25846@topo.toronto.redhat.com \
--to=dnovillo@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=rth@redhat.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).