On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/15/15 16:43, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Jakub, myself and management have discussed this issue extensively and
those
patches specifically. I'm painfully aware of how this affects the
ability
to utilize numerical packages
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
Stage3 is closing rapidly. I've drained my queue of patches I was tracking
for gcc-5.However, note that I don't track everything. If it's a patch
for a backend, language other than C or seemingly has another maintainer
Hi Jeff,
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/15/15 15:34, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
Stage3 is closing rapidly. I've drained my queue of patches I was
tracking
for gcc-5.However, note
Ping^5 for: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00519.html
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Ping^4 for: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00519.html
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hello
Ping^4 for: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00519.html
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hello,
Ping for https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00519.html
Patches posted early enough during Stage 1 and not yet fully reviewed
may
Hello,
Ping for https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00519.html
Patches posted early enough during Stage 1 and not yet fully reviewed
may still get in early in Stage 3. Please make sure to ping them
soon enough.
This patch was initially posted before stage 1 opened... for 4.9. So
Ping^2.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Ping.
On 19 Oct 2014 23:44, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi Jakub,
Thanks for your feedback! See below.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014
Hi Jakub,
Thanks for your feedback! See below.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:16:19PM +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Got total silence the last 4 times I posted this, and users have been
bugging me about it offline, so trying
Hi all,
Got total silence the last 4 times I posted this, and users have been
bugging me about it offline, so trying again.
This patch fixes a showstopper problem preventing the transparent use
of OpenMP in scientific libraries, esp. with Python. Specifically, it
is currently not possible to use
Hi all,
Ping. Again, this patch fixes a limitation in GOMP which makes it
impossible for programmers who care about gcc compatibility to safely
use OpenMP in libraries; GOMP is the last OpenMP implementation with
this limitation.
-n
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Nathaniel Smith n
not support this functionality.
-n
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/16/2014 03:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Yes
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/16/2014 03:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Yes, but the problem is that depending on what the user intends to do
after forking, our
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/16/2014 03:59 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Yes, but the problem is that depending on what the user intends to do
after forking, our pthread_atfork handler might help or it might hurt,
and we don't know which
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/14/2014 12:21 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Any reason not to just run gomp_free_thread_pool from
gomp_after_fork_callback
directly? I see no restrictions on what kind of code is allowed to execute
during that
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:21:24AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Well, fork is async signal safe function, so calling malloc/free, or any
kind of synchronization primitives is completely unsafe there.
The only safe thing
Problem: A common use care for OMP is to accelerate the internal
workings of an otherwise serial interface. For example, OpenBLAS in
some settings will internally use OMP to accelerate the implementation
of matrix-matrix multiply (DGEMM). When DGEMM is called, then an OMP
section is started, the
16 matches
Mail list logo
