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
