search for: cbertol

...anl.gov> >> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev" >> <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Carlo Bertolli" <cbertol at us.ibm.com>, >> "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 6:46:57 AM >> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM subproject for parallelism runtime and support >> libraries >> &gt...

...anl.gov> >> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev" >> <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Carlo Bertolli" <cbertol at us.ibm.com>, >> "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 9:42:34 AM >> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM subproject for parallelism runtime and support >> libraries >> &gt...

...nl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev" <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>, > "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Carlo Bertolli" > <cbertol at us.ibm.com>, "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 12:19:19 AM > Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM > subproject for parallelism runtime and support libraries > > The thread has lost fo...

Hal, > 1 июня 2016 г., в 14:22, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> написал(а): > I agree that the 'openmp' runtime project logically fits within the purview of a 'parallel' project. We may even want to move it there eventually. We might also want it to remain separate while the project uses its own coding conventions (which are different from LLVM's coding conventions

The thread has lost focus and cherry picking replies.. To restate things since maybe you missed my points ---- 1) SE is a programming model and needs a home of it's own. Having a programming model with it's headers and all other stuff glued into a runtime project which intends to be universal and PM agnostic doesn't make sense. 1.1) The more I look, the most it seems SE is just a

...llel programming runtimes can also potentially have a place here. Thanks again, Hal ----- Original Message ----- > From: "via Openmp-dev" <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Carlo Bertolli" > <cbertol at us.ibm.com>, "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 3:53:42 AM > Subject: R...

...ve misunderstood). My analysis from looking through the code was that libomptarget had some similarities with the platform support in SE, so I just wanted to consider how those two libraries compared. I didn't do a comparison with liboffload. On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:11 AM Carlo Bertolli <cbertol at us.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi > > Reading through the comments: both Chris and Chandler referenced to > liboffload, while I thought the subject of conversation was libomptarget > and SE. > I am being picky about names because liboffload is a library available as > part of omp...

...alysis from looking through the code was that > libomptarget had some similarities with the platform support in SE, so I > just wanted to consider how those two libraries compared. I didn't do a > comparison with liboffload. > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:11 AM Carlo Bertolli <cbertol at us.ibm.com> > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Reading through the comments: both Chris and Chandler referenced to >> liboffload, while I thought the subject of conversation was libomptarget >> and SE. >> I am being picky about names because liboffload is a libra...

...through the code was that >> libomptarget had some similarities with the platform support in SE, so I >> just wanted to consider how those two libraries compared. I didn't do a >> comparison with liboffload. >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:11 AM Carlo Bertolli <cbertol at us.ibm.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> Reading through the comments: both Chris and Chandler referenced to >>> liboffload, while I thought the subject of conversation was libomptarget >>> and SE. >>> I am being picky about nam...

...that >>> libomptarget had some similarities with the platform support in SE, so I >>> just wanted to consider how those two libraries compared. I didn't do a >>> comparison with liboffload. >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:11 AM Carlo Bertolli <cbertol at us.ibm.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Reading through the comments: both Chris and Chandler referenced to >>>> liboffload, while I thought the subject of conversation was libomptarget >>>> and SE. >>&gt...

...t; libomptarget had some similarities with the platform support in SE, so I >>>> just wanted to consider how those two libraries compared. I didn't do a >>>> comparison with liboffload. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:11 AM Carlo Bertolli <cbertol at us.ibm.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Reading through the comments: both Chris and Chandler referenced to >>>>> liboffload, while I thought the subject of conversation was libomptarget >>>...

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:04 PM Andrey Bokhanko via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Thanks Jason (and Chandler) to tell Chandler's opinion, though it still > doesn't answer my original question: > > > > Both SE and libomptarget are libraries that handle offloading, not > parallelism. I understand other libraries, to be added in the future, might

Hola Chandler, On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev < openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It seems like if the OpenMP folks want to add a liboffload plugin to > StreamExecutor, that would be an awesome additional platform, but I don't > see why we need to force the coupling here. > > Let me give you a reason: while user-facing sides of