search for: foo_ctx

...brary boundaries." > > (This seems to be part of the misunderstanding, I leave my comment > here > anyway:) > > The simd-related stuff works because it is a uniform mangling scheme > used by all compilers. Take the situation below in which I think we > want to call foo_CTX in the library. If so, we need a name for it. > In the situation below, the mangled name is going to be the same for both compilers, as long as they adhere to the vector function ABI. > > a.c: // Compiled by gcc into a library #omp declare variant (foo) > match(CTX) void foo_CTX(....

...> (This seems to be part of the misunderstanding, I leave my comment > > here > > anyway:) > > > > The simd-related stuff works because it is a uniform mangling scheme > > used by all compilers. Take the situation below in which I think we > > want to call foo_CTX in the library. If so, we need a name for it. > > > > In the situation below, the mangled name is going to be the same for both compilers, as long as they adhere to the vector function ABI. > > > > > a.c: // Compiled by gcc into a library #omp declare variant (foo) &...

...attributes/metadata > we could use at library boundaries." (This seems to be part of the misunderstanding, I leave my comment here anyway:) The simd-related stuff works because it is a uniform mangling scheme used by all compilers. Take the situation below in which I think we want to call foo_CTX in the library. If so, we need a name for it. a.c: // Compiled by gcc into a library #omp declare variant (foo) match(CTX) void foo_CTX(...) {...} b.c: // Compiled by clang linked against the library above. #omp declare variant (foo) match(CTX) void foo_CTX(...); void bar(...) { #pragma omp...

...the misunderstanding, I leave my comment > > > here > > > anyway:) > > > > > > The simd-related stuff works because it is a uniform mangling > > > scheme used by all compilers. Take the situation below in which I > > > think we want to call foo_CTX in the library. If so, we need a name for it. > > > > > > > In the situation below, the mangled name is going to be the same for both compilers, as long as they adhere to the vector function ABI. > > > > > > > > a.c: // Compiled by gcc into a librar...

...we could use at library boundaries." > > (This seems to be part of the misunderstanding, I leave my comment here > anyway:) > > The simd-related stuff works because it is a uniform mangling scheme used by all compilers. Take the situation below in which I think we want to call foo_CTX in the library. If so, we need a name for it. > > > a.c: // Compiled by gcc into a library > #omp declare variant (foo) match(CTX) > void foo_CTX(...) {...} > > b.c: // Compiled by clang linked against the library above. > #omp declare variant (foo) match(CTX) > void...

...mment >>>>> here >>>>> anyway:) >>>>> >>>>> The simd-related stuff works because it is a uniform mangling >>>>> scheme used by all compilers. Take the situation below in which I >>>>> think we want to call foo_CTX in the library. If so, we need a name for it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> In the situation below, the mangled name is going to be the same for both compilers, as long as they adhere to the vector function ABI. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>...

I think we should split this discussion: TOPIC 1 & 2 & 4: How do implement all use cases and OpenMP 5.X features, including compatibility with other compilers and cross module support. TOPIC 3b & 5: Interoperability with clang declare (system vs. user declares) TOPIC 3a & 3c: floating point issues? I inlined comments for