On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 01:55:00PM +0200, Frederik Harwath wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. But actually doing this would require a
> complete rewrite which would almost certainly imply that mainline GCC
> would not support the loop transformations for a long time.
I don't think it needs
Hi Jakub,
On 16.05.23 13:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:45:16AM +0200, Frederik Harwath wrote:
The place where different compilers implement the loop transformations
was discussed in an OpenMP loop transformation meeting last year. Two
compilers (another one and GCC with
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:45:16AM +0200, Frederik Harwath wrote:
> The place where different compilers implement the loop transformations
> was discussed in an OpenMP loop transformation meeting last year. Two
> compilers (another one and GCC with this patch series) transformed the loops
> in the
Hi Jakub,
On 15.05.23 12:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 04:30:38PM +0100, Frederik Harwath wrote:
this patch series implements the OpenMP 5.1 "unroll" and "tile"
constructs. It includes changes to the C,C++, and Fortran front end
for parsing the new constructs and a new
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:19:00PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> For C++ in templates we obviously need to defer that until instantiations,
> the constants in the clauses etc. could be template parameters etc.
Even in C++ the how many canonical loop nest form loops does this
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 04:30:38PM +0100, Frederik Harwath wrote:
> this patch series implements the OpenMP 5.1 "unroll" and "tile"
> constructs. It includes changes to the C,C++, and Fortran front end
> for parsing the new constructs and a new middle-end
> "omp_transform_loops" pass which
Hi,
this patch series implements the OpenMP 5.1 "unroll" and "tile"
constructs. It includes changes to the C,C++, and Fortran front end
for parsing the new constructs and a new middle-end
"omp_transform_loops" pass which implements the transformations in a
source language agnostic way. The
