https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #2 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Created attachment 34489
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34489&action=edit
minimal testcase to produce ICE on linux and darwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #3 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
The attached reduced test case reproduces the ICE with...
$ ~/dist/bin/gfortran -fopenacc -DACC_DEVICE_TYPE_host_nonshm=1
-DACC_MEM_SHARED=0 -g -flto asyncwait-1.f90
lto1: internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
OpenACC bug - the LTO frontend doesn't seem to know about the OpenACC builtin
function codes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, -fopenmp isn't marked LTO, so if not anything else, for consistency
-fopenacc should be handled similarly as -fopenmp.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I wonder if https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00085.html
> helps here.
AFAICT it does:
=== libgomp Summary ===
# of expected passes12418
# of unsupported tests5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried the example, and added -fopenmp. In lto1, I observed:
...
(gdb) p flag_openmp
$2 = 0
(gdb) p flag_openacc
$3 = 0
(gdb) p flag_tree_parallelize_loops
$4 = 1
(gdb) p flag_offload_abi
$5 = OFF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Perhaps for consistency, we should mark both fopenmp and fopenacc
> as LTO options?
Not sure to understand. Is it not what the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00085.html does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> > Perhaps for consistency, we should mark both fopenmp and fopenacc
> > as LTO options?
>
> Not sure to understand. Is it not what the patch a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34516
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34516&action=edit
tentative patch, adding flag_ltrans || flag_wpa to the GOACC builtin guard
conditions
Tentative patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
>
> --- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Created attachment 34516
> -->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> But I prever -fopenmp/-fopenacc as LTO
> options.
>
What is the rationale for the preference ?
If we go with -fopenmp/-fopenacc as LTO options,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
>
> --- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #16 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34536
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34536&action=edit
tentative patch, makes fopenacc an LTO option, adds lto-wrapper handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > tentative patch, adding flag_ltrans || flag_wpa to the GOACC builtin guard
> > conditions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #18 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
> >
> > --- Comment #14 from vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If the LTO marker in *.opt works, no objection from me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
>
> --- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64672
--- Comment #21 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Jan 23 12:54:16 2015
New Revision: 220038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220038&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make fopenacc an LTO option
2015-01-23 Tom de Vries
PR
22 matches
Mail list logo
