[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Frontend ..
From: |
Lars Segerlund |
Subject: |
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Frontend .. |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:49:02 +0200 |
Thanks, looking at the patch now.
One thing that strikes me is that some parts of gomp need's to be shared
between C/Fortran , such as definitions for clauses and directives, wemight
even be able to share some of the handlers if done right.
Any thoughts ?
/ Lars Segerlund.
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:39:07 +0200
Jacob Weismann Poulsen <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It is true that I stumbled over GOMP during the spring and that I
> spent some time browsing and hacking bits of the gcc source (first
> encounter - so it is probably pretty useless) and the source available
> on the GOMP web pages. The gcc-patch is a rather straightforward dealing
> with the incomplete proposal for the gcc front-end for GOMP version 0.1,
> cf. the TODO proposal here:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gomp-discuss/2004-04/msg00002.html
>
> The line-based '#pragma omp' syntax check is built around the
> pragma-handler and based on the c-openmp.c proposal by Steven Bosscher,
> cf. http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gomp-discuss/2003-02/msg00076.html.
> I totally agree that putting the openMP pragma handling in the pragma.c
> stub is probably not the right thing to do (it is quite clear from the
> mail archive that Steven and others came to the same conclusion).
>
> Nevertheless, I have learned from playing with it and others might do
> the same. Moreover, the straightforward approach will give
> us room for experiments. Say that we wish to play with the data-structures
> that will be passed from the front-end on to the middle-end/back-end, e.g.
> simply try to pass some information all the way, then we have a place to
> hook these things in. That is, the state of my gcc patch is merely for
> experiments and NOT a proposal for a final front-end solution. The current
> status is that the samples from app. A (in the openMP specification)
> are (hopefully correctly :)) validated on a line-based basis whenever one
> passed the 'fgomp' option to the
> patched gcc.
>
> As to the samples app. A, I had to fix most of the samples to make them
> compile,
> link and run which made me hack a bit in the auto* configuration.
>
> After having spent some hours playing with it I mailed Biagio and asked
> him how to commit patches. He gave me cvs access but I hesitated committing
> it because I was unsure about how you preferred the CVS organized. I recall
> mailing the list with a proposal but I think that it was never resolved.
> Eventually, I mailed some of it to Scott and Biagio (I think as an
> answer to reported build problems with the auto* setup).
>
> I have by no means lost interest in the GOMP project but I went on vacation
> just after I discovered (and played with) the project and at the time we
> came back we had to find a new place to live. Finding a new place to live has
> STOLEN all my spare time ever since - sorry! I plan to spend time on GOMP
> again soon and the first thing I wish to do is to give Scott some deserved
> comments on his fine proposals.
>
> Cheers, Jacob
>
> PS! I have attached the patch for gcc-3.3. The modifications to the gomp
> project files involves renaming and moving around files. Mailing tarballs
> to the list does not appeal to me. If anyone is interested I can send
> them directly or we can find a place to put them.
>
>
>
> * Biagio Lucini <address@hidden> [2004-09-07 11:00]:
> > Hi Lars -
> >
> > On Monday 06 September 2004 16.16, Lars Segerlund wrote:
> > >
> > > From the discusions lately I have understood that basicly we would like
> > > to bring the OMP stuff into tree-ssa whithout much modification, simply
> > > doing a syntax and context check but not generating something interesting.
> > >
> >
> > I would suggest you to start from here. First, let us make sure we can
> > parse
> > things, then we will decide what to do with that (although I do agree that
> > all the useful stuff will go to tree-ssa). Jacob has written something
> > which
> > was very close to a parser. Maybe we can start from there? I would like
> > also
> > to have Jacob's opinion, since so far he has been the developer on this
> > list
> > who got closer to have a working parser (for C).
> >
> > If needed (i.e. some people are working on it) Diego could probably resync
> > the
> > branch.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Biagio
> >
> > --
> > =========================================================
> >
> > Biagio Lucini
> > Institut Fuer Theoretische Physik
> > ETH Hoenggerberg
> > CH-8093 Zuerich - Switzerland
> > Tel. +41 (0)1 6332562
> >
> > =========================================================
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gomp-discuss mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gomp-discuss
>
> --
> <address@hidden>
> Fingerprint: 9315 DC43 D2E4 4F70 3AA8 F8F0 9DA0 B765 F5C8 7D26
>
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Frontend .., Scott Robert Ladd, 2004/09/13
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Frontend .., Diego Novillo, 2004/09/07
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Frontend .., Scott Robert Ladd, 2004/09/13