Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

Hi, On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:03:41AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > Ping. > > Given that we conceptually agreed about this task, but apparently nobody > is now interested in reviewing my proposed changes (and tells me how > they'd like me to submit the patch for review), should I

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

Hi! Ping. Given that we conceptually agreed about this task, but apparently nobody is now interested in reviewing my proposed changes (and tells me how they'd like me to submit the patch for review), should I maybe just execute the steps? On Wed, 18 May 2016 13:42:37 +0200, Thomas Schwinge

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

Hi! Ping. On Wed, 11 May 2016 15:44:14 +0200, I wrote: > Ping. > > On Tue, 03 May 2016 11:34:39 +0200, I wrote: > > 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 > > >

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

Hi! Ping. On Tue, 03 May 2016 11:34:39 +0200, I wrote: > 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 > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

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 wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > > On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?)

Hi! On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 14:15:42 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:11:45PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:57:05 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:53:14PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?)

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:11:45PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:57:05 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:53:14PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > For all the other splitting patches that I have posted/proposed, the

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?)

Hi! On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:57:05 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:53:14PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > For all the other splitting patches that I have posted/proposed, the idea > > then is to commit these onto both gcc-6-branch and trunk? > > If we

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?)

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:53:14PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:15:07 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:27:40PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:01:13 +0200, I wrote: > > > > "simdclone" pass,

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?)

Hi! On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:15:07 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:27:40PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:01:13 +0200, I wrote: > > > "simdclone" pass, with the > > > respective supporting code. I will certainly submit line-diff

Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?)

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:27:40PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:01:13 +0200, I wrote: > > "simdclone" pass, with the > > respective supporting code. I will certainly submit line-diff patches if > > we agree that this is sound -- these two may actually be good candidates

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

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 wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > > On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

On 04/14/2016 03:36 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: I don't know how meaningful it is to create/discuss/review/commit the following patch until the overall approach has been agreed upon? Why not? We agree the file should be split, and this makes it easier. So I'll approve it for stage1, or

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

Hi! On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:20:19 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/13/2016 07:56 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > 0001-Split-up-gcc-omp-low.c-plain.patch.xz attached. > > That looks much better. However, the //OMPWHATEVER comments are not > really all that helpful.

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

On 04/13/2016 07:56 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Best way to present this might be to do diff -du old-omp-low.c . OK, I found Git "-C5%" produce something very similar to that; 0001-Split-up-gcc-omp-low.c-plain.patch.xz attached. That looks much better. However, the //OMPWHATEVER comments are

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

On 04/13/2016 06:01 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: The attached 0001-Split-up-gcc-omp-low.c.patch.xz is a Git "--color --word-diff --ignore-space-change" patch, purely meant for manual review; I'm intentionally ;-) not attaching a "patch-applyable" patch at this point, to minimize the risk of other

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

Hi! On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 11:36:03 +0200, I wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:08:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek 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

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:36:03AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Certainly. On one side I'd say it is too late now in stage3, on the other > > side when would be better time to do that, during stage1 people will have > > more likely out of the tree branches with more changes (I'm aware we

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

Hi, On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:36:03AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:08:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > > > > >In

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

Hi! On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:08:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > > >In addition to that, how about we split up gcc/omp-low.c into several > > >files? Would

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

On 12/10/15 06:34, Jakub Jelinek wrote: I'm aware of some duplication in expand_omp_for_* functions, and some of the obvious duplications were already moved to helper functions. But in these cases the number of differences is even significantly bigger too, so having just one function that

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > >In addition to that, 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

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:26:10PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 12/10/2015 09:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > >>On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >>> > >>>In addition to that, how about we split up gcc/omp-low.c

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

On 12/10/2015 09:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: In addition to that, 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

Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c? (was: [hsa 5/10] OpenMP lowering/expansion changes (gridification))

Hi! I've been meaning to suggest this for some time already: On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:19:30 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > As for omp-low.c changes, the file is already large enough that it would be > nice if it is easy to find out what routines are for gridification purposes >

Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: In addition to that, 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? Or, can you tell already that there would be too