Hi! On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:01:09 +0200, I wrote: > On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 11:36:03 +0200, I wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:08:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > > On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > >how about we split up gcc/omp-low.c into several > > > > >files? Would it make sense (I have not yet looked in detail) to do so > > > > >along the borders of the several passes defined therein? > > > > > I suspect a split along the ompexp/omplow boundary would be quite easy > > > > to > > > > achieve. > > That was indeed the first one that I tackled, omp-expand.c (spelled out > "expand" instead of "exp" to avoid confusion as "exp" might also be short > for "expression"; OK?) [...]
That's the one I'd suggest to pursue next, now that GCC 6.1 has been released. How would you like me to submit the patch for review? (It's huge, obviously.) A few high-level comments, and questions that remain to be answered: > Stuff that does not relate to OMP lowering, I did not move stuff out of > omp-low.c (into a new omp.c, or omp-misc.c, for example) so far, but > instead just left all that in omp-low.c. We'll see how far we get. > > One thing I noticed is that there sometimes is more than one suitable > place to put stuff: omp-low.c and omp-expand.c categorize by compiler > passes, and omp-offload.c -- at least in part -- [would be] about the > orthogonal > "offloading" category. For example, see the OMPTODO "struct oacc_loop > and enum oacc_loop_flags" in gcc/omp-offload.h. We'll see how that goes. > Some more comments, to help review: > As I don't know how this is usually done: is it appropriate to remove > "Contributed by Diego Novillo" from omp-low.c (he does get mentioned for > his OpenMP work in gcc/doc/contrib.texi; a ton of other people have been > contributing a ton of other stuff since omp-low.c has been created), or > does this line stay in omp-low.c, or do I even duplicate it into the new > files? > > I tried not to re-order stuff when moving. But: we may actually want to > reorder stuff, to put it into a more sensible order. Any suggestions? > I had to export a small number of functions (see the prototypes not moved > but added to the header files). > > Because it's also used in omp-expand.c, I moved the one-line static > inline is_reference function from omp-low.c to omp-low.h, and renamed it > to omp_is_reference because of the very generic name. Similar functions > stay in omp-low.c however, so they're no longer defined next to each > other. OK, or does this need a different solution? Grüße Thomas
