Hi! On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:25:50 +0100, Bernd Schmidt <bschm...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 02/10/2016 12:49 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > [...] > > I think this has to be considered after gcc-6.
Hmm, I see. > In general, what's the > state of OpenACC these days? Much improved compared to GCC 5. :-) Anything specific you'd like me to elaborate on? <https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/OpenACC> should be fairly accurate. > I'm slightly confused by the interface between offloaded code and > libgomp. It looks like you're collecting avoid-offloading flags > per-function, but then when things get registered, it seems like a > per-image flag. (Per-image flag that affects all offloading for a given offloading type, even.) > Is that right? It seems like too large a hammer. Yes, we need a hammer that big: we have to ensure consistency between data regions on the device and code offloading to the device, as otherwise we'll very easily run into inconsistencies, because of the non-shared memory. In the general case, it's "all or nothing": you either have to offload all kernels or none of them. > >> [...] > > Avoid unnecessary braces. > > >> [...] > > Typo. Thanks for the review; fixed. Grüße Thomas
