similar to: [LLVMdev] OpenMP support in CLANG: A proposal

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > We would like to make a proposal to support OpenMP in CLANG. The goal of > this effort is to provide support for syntax > > analysis (parsing), semantic analysis and AST implementation for OpenMP > constructs in CLANG. > > > > We would like to defer the design for

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>wrote: > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > We would like to make a proposal to support OpenMP in CLANG. The goal of > > this effort is to provide support for syntax > > > > analysis (parsing), semantic

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eli and Others > > In response to your feedback, I have taken care of all your review comments > - I removed clangOMP.a > and moved the implementation of "class OmpPragmaHandler" to "clangLex.a". > > The attached zipped file - namely -

On 10/13/2012 04:38 AM, Mahesha HS wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Eli and Others >>> >>> In response to your feedback, I have taken care of all your review comments >>> - I removed clangOMP.a

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> On 10/13/2012 04:38 AM, Mahesha HS wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 10,

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eli and Others >> >> In response to your feedback, I have taken care of all your review comments >> - I removed clangOMP.a >> and moved the implementation of "class

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 10/13/2012 04:38 AM, Mahesha HS wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>

Hi Eli and Others In response to your feedback, I have taken care of all your review comments - I removed clangOMP.a and moved the implementation of "class OmpPragmaHandler" to "clangLex.a". The attached zipped file - namely - 'OpenMP_support_in_Clang.tar.gz' contains all the implemented "patches" along with *newly* added source files. Another attached text

Hi Eli, Attached zipped file, named, "fopenmp_option_support.tar.gz" contains the first patch, along with relevant *test case*. This patch is to support the option "-fopenmp" option in Clang. Following files are changed in this patch. Please start going through this patch, and let me know comments. Meanwhile, I will prepare next patch.

Hi Eli, Attached is the next patch in the line. This patch (class_pragma_omp_handler_support.patch) contains the implementation of the class "class PragmaOmpHandler". I also attached the test case (openmp_syntax_test.c). This test case is actually to test the syntactically legal simple OpenMP constructs. However, we can *really* test it only after submitting the next two patches - one

[This is a cross-posting of a message posted in cfe-dev mailing list ( http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2013-August/031595.html); sorry for double-posting.] All, This is to announce availability of a full OpenMP 3.1 support implementation in Clang compiler. The project is hosted there: http://clang-omp.github.com/ It is based on clang 3.3 (and will be updated as new clang/llvm

I am not an optimizer guy, but, I am just thinking, if we can solve the problems that we are discussing in this mail chain, by introducing a middle-end in between front-end and LLVM. We may need to introduce GGC GIMPLE kind of IR (or any new suitable IR) in the middle-end so that front-end can produce this new IR, middle-end can consume it, and do all the parallelization and subsequent

All, Just a heads up that OpenMP 3.1 implementation in clang/llvm compiler is fully complete. Kudos to my colleague from Intel, Alexey Bataev, who wrote most of the code! Apart of Alexey, many other people contributed to this effort; most notably Alexander Musman (also from Intel), who implemented #pragma simd; Mahesha S (then from AMD, now from Samsung), who wrote initial patch that started it

Dear All, I am trying to understand the process followed for converting GIMPLE IR to LLVM IR in LLVM-GCC/DragonEgg - more importantly conversion of OpenMP extended GIMPLE IR to LLVM IR. It would be great if anybody points me to some documentation before I my-self delve into the understanding of related source code. -- Cheers -mahesha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment

Hello Duncan Sands, >From your reply, what I can understand is that there is no any new OPENMP specific instructions introduced into LLVM IR as a part of DragonEgg project since GCC has already done the job of lowering OpenMP directives into GOMP runtime library calls at LOW GIMPLE IR level. Now, it throws up following questions. 1. Am I correct that DragoEgg should logically supports

On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:28:25 +0000 "Adve, Vikram Sadanand" <vadve at illinois.edu> wrote: > Hal, Andrey, Alexey, > > From the LLVM design viewpoint, there is a fundamental problem with > both Hal's approach and the Intel approach: both are quite > language-specific. OpenMP is a particular parallel language, with > particular constructs (e.g., parallel

Hal, Andrey, Alexey, >From the LLVM design viewpoint, there is a fundamental problem with both Hal's approach and the Intel approach: both are quite language-specific. OpenMP is a particular parallel language, with particular constructs (e.g., parallel regions) and semantics. LLVM is a language-neutral IR and infrastructure and OpenMP-specific concepts should not creep into it. I've

With reference to the following thread: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-January/094100.html I am having the same issue. First I did a git pull of all the relevant directories and then doing a cmake: cmake -DLLVM_ENABLE_DOXYGEN=ON -DLLVM_ENABLE_WERROR=OFF -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86" ../llvm and followed by make: [ 22%] Built target LLVMVectorize [ 25%] Built target

Hello, I have tried a lot fix this error but am not able to can you please find me a solution am trying to compile the SAFECode in Cygwin Environment to work for windows. used make -j4 command to make the files in cygwin i have got this error make[5]: Leaving directory '/home/uidr7475/Work/LLVM_OBJ/projects/safecode/tools/clang/include' /usr/bin/cp: cannot stat

Hi, The test-suite expects to be built standalone but it looks like you have it in the same tree as LLVM. You'll need to remove it. From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Peter Teoh via llvm-dev Sent: 28 February 2016 14:31 To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [3.8 Release] We have branched With reference to the following thread: