On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 07:38:14PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 17:09:54 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 05:02:34PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > > > > How do other accelerators cope with the situation when half of the > > > > application is compiled with the accelerator disabled? (Would some of > > > > their calls to GOMP_target_ext lead to abort?) > > > > > > GOMP_target_ext should never abort (unless internal error), worst case it > > > just falls back into the host fallback.
Agreed -- the way it aborts today rather than using host fallback looks rather surprising to me. > > Wouldn't that lead to hard-to-find problems in case of nonshared memory? > > I mean when someone expects that all target regions are executed on the > > device, > > but in fact some of them are silently executed on the host with different > > data > > environment. > > E.g. for HSA it really shouldn't matter, as it is shared memory accelerator. > For XeonPhi we hopefully can offload anything. NVPTX is problematic, > because it can't offload all the code, Sorry, can you clarify -- what do you mean by "can't offload"? > but if it can be e.g. compile time detected that it will not be possible, it > can just provide offloaded code for the target. (as a result of previous confusion I can't follow this part either) Thanks. Alexander