similar to: [LLVMdev] Open work items with a small scope

Hi Julian, > Some areas/ideas we are especially interested in: > Adaption of Clang to support OpenMP (http://clang-omp.github.io/), but haven't been able to contact one of the developers yet. This project is owned by my team, and we certainly welcome contributions! Have you tried to contact us via https://github.com/clang-omp/clang/issues ? Either way, it is really hard to find a

Hi, I triggered a build failure on a Windows-sanitizer by making the sanity checking in `ASAN_INTERCEPT_FUNC` a bit stricter. My best guess is that the type of the defined interceptor is not compatible (in C++ typing terms) with the “real” function. This seems to be the case for the following 2 functions: CreateThread “no conversion”: From: 'DWORD (__cdecl *)(void * ,

Hi, In sanitizer code we have two notions of stack unwinders: fast and slow. [1] In the context of sanitizers, stack unwinding is most often for printing error reports that include a stack trace. I am currently trying to fix an issue that is related to some platforms (Darwin) only supporting the fast unwinder, but calling code not being aware of that possibility. My mental model was that

Thank you for the explanation, Ben! I realized I didn’t give enough context for my question: As you noted, the slow/fast unwinder can only do its work if there is enough (runtime) information. Otherwise stack printing usually does exactly what you suggested: printing the one frame corresponding to the recent pc. When I asked if “platforms are required to at least support one kind of unwinder” I

Hi All, We'd like to make a proposal for OpenMP representation in LLVM IR. Our goal is to reach an agreement in the community on a simple, complete and extensible representation of OpenMP language constructs in LLVM IR. Hopefully, this would serve as a common ground and would enable further development of OpenMP support both in Clang and LLVM compiler toolchain. We seek feedback on the

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

[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

Not to distract, but the word, `procedurization' is not an English word. It's just leaping out at me when it is either procedure(s) (noun) or proceduralize (verb). Even processes would make sense. I couldn't help myself because the word was distracting. - Marc P.S. Not that my vote counts, but I'm more in the camp of Hal whose approach to tackling the parallelization

Alexandre, Thanks for further shedding some light on the way OpenMP handles dependencies between tasks. I'm sorry for leaving that out of my document, it was just because I didn't know much about the way OpenMP handled its workflows. On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:43 AM Jason Henline <jhen at google.com> wrote: > Hi Carlo, > > Thanks for helping to clarify this point about

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:52 AM Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> All, >> >> I'd like to resurrect the discussion on replacing libgomp with libiomp as >> the default OpenMP runtime library linked with -fopenmp. >> > > Just for

Hi Johannes: 1. Attached is the submitted PDF. 2. I have a notes section where I state: I am still unsure of the GPU extension I proposed as I dont know how LLVM plays into the GPU cross over space like how nvcc (Nvidia's compiler integrates gcc and PTX) does.I dont know if there is a chance that function graphs in the CPU+GPU name spaces are seamless/continupus within nvcc or if nvcc is just

Hi Carlo, Thanks for helping to clarify this point about libomptarget vs liboffload, I have been getting confused about it myself. I think the open question concerns libomptarget not liboffload (others can correct me if I have 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

I have started looking at the state of PGO (Profile Guided Optimization) in LLVM.**I want to discuss my high-level plan and make sure I'm not missing anything interesting out. I appreciate any feedback on this, pointers to existing work, patches and anything related to PGO in LLVM. I will be keeping changes to this plan in this web document

Hi Sergos, Am I got it right, that SE interfaces are bound to the stream that is passed as argument? As I can see the stream is an abstraction of the target - hence data transfers for particular stream is limited to this stream? As for libomptarget implementation the data once offloaded can be reused in all offload entries, without additional data transfer. Is it possible in SE approach? If I

Jack, Could you, please, submit a bug report? -- including steps to reproduce (where you got imageMagick sources, how exactly you compiled them, etc) Andrey On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Chandler,

All, I'd like to resurrect the discussion on replacing libgomp with libiomp as the default OpenMP runtime library linked with -fopenmp. For reference, the previous discussion is accessible 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

Chandler, Thanks for the reply -- I always included you in libiomp supporters camp; it is good to see I wasn't mistaken! ;-) On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > 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 curious. =] > No, sorry. libgomp doesn't

Jason, Am I got it right, that SE interfaces are bound to the stream that is passed as argument? As I can see the stream is an abstraction of the target - hence data transfers for particular stream is limited to this stream? As for libomptarget implementation the data once offloaded can be reused in all offload entries, without additional data transfer. Is it possible in SE approach? Regarding

Hal, Thank you for the reply! > As you may know, this is the third such proposal over the past two > months, one by me > (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html) > and the other, based somewhat on mine, by Sanjoy > (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-September/053798.html) Yes, I was aware of your proposal. I hesitated to make any comments

Hi Andrey, Sorry, I definitely misspoke when I said it was likely for OpenMP stuff to end up in this new project. I meant to say that it was possible in the long run, but there are no plans for that now. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:55 AM Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jason Henline via Openmp-dev < > openmp-dev at