search for: d9370

...e-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140217/thread.html#99461 >> >> >> We are very close to getting *full* OpenMP 3.1 specification >> supported in clang (only one (!) clause is not implemented yet, and >> the patch is already sent for review today: >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D9370 ). This implementation generates Intel >> API library calls; thus, it can't be used with libgomp and it is >> simply logical to link a compatible runtime (libiomp) instead. > > To be clear, this is now LLVM's OpenMP runtime (not just Intel's), and has been ported to se...

...cessible there: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140217/thread.html#99461 We are very close to getting *full* OpenMP 3.1 specification supported in clang (only one (!) clause is not implemented yet, and the patch is already sent for review today: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9370). This implementation generates Intel API library calls; thus, it can't be used with libgomp and it is simply logical to link a compatible runtime (libiomp) instead. Last time Chandler objected against doing this, and gave a good (and proper!) scolding. Let me quote his objections along with u...

...> Just for the record, I'm really excited to see this. =] > > >> We are very close to getting *full* OpenMP 3.1 specification supported in >> clang (only one (!) clause is not implemented yet, and the patch is already >> sent for review today: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9370). This >> implementation generates Intel API library calls; thus, it can't be used >> with libgomp and it is simply logical to link a compatible runtime >> (libiomp) instead. >> > > Is there no way to support libgomp here as well? I don't say this to hold >...

...e-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140217/thread.html#99461 >> >> >> We are very close to getting *full* OpenMP 3.1 specification >> supported in clang (only one (!) clause is not implemented yet, and >> the patch is already sent for review today: >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D9370 ). This implementation generates Intel >> API library calls; thus, it can't be used with libgomp and it is >> simply logical to link a compatible runtime (libiomp) instead. > > To be clear, this is now LLVM's OpenMP runtime (not just Intel's), and has been ported to se...

...> Just for the record, I'm really excited to see this. =] > > >> We are very close to getting *full* OpenMP 3.1 specification supported in >> clang (only one (!) clause is not implemented yet, and the patch is already >> sent for review today: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9370). This >> implementation generates Intel API library calls; thus, it can't be used >> with libgomp and it is simply logical to link a compatible runtime >> (libiomp) instead. >> > > Is there no way to support libgomp here as well? I don't say this to hold >...

...y excited to see this. =] >>> >>> >>>> We are very close to getting *full* OpenMP 3.1 specification supported >>>> in clang (only one (!) clause is not implemented yet, and the patch is >>>> already sent for review today: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9370). This >>>> implementation generates Intel API library calls; thus, it can't be used >>>> with libgomp and it is simply logical to link a compatible runtime >>>> (libiomp) instead. >>>> >>> >>> Is there no way to support libgomp...

...e library linked with -fopenmp. Just for the record, I'm really excited to see this. =] We are very close to getting *full* OpenMP 3.1 specification supported in clang (only one (!) clause is not implemented yet, and the patch is already sent for review today: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9370 ). This implementation generates Intel API library calls; thus, it can't be used with libgomp and it is simply logical to link a compatible runtime (libiomp) instead. Is there no way to support libgomp here as well? I don't say this to hold up changing the defaults in any way, just c...

...c.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140217/thread.html#99461 >> >> We are very close to getting *full* OpenMP 3.1 specification supported in >> clang (only one (!) clause is not implemented yet, and the patch is already >> sent for review today: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9370). This >> implementation generates Intel API library calls; thus, it can't be used >> with libgomp and it is simply logical to link a compatible runtime >> (libiomp) instead. >> >> Last time Chandler objected against doing this, and gave a good (and >> proper...