similar to: [LLVMdev] OpenMP 3.1 Implementation Complete

No, just changing defaults -- subject to code reviewers approval. As I said before, I prefer to leave library naming to library pros. Andrey On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > So you plan on switching and enabling the openmp library defaults as > well as changing the openmp library name at the same time? > Jack >

Jack, Alexey [Bataev] promised to send it for review in a day or two. Then it should be approved by code reviewers, which might take some time. andrey Отправлено с iPad > 12 мая 2015 г., в 21:22, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> написал(а): > > Andrey, > Any idea when the patch to enable openmp as the default for > -fopenmp will be posted to

Jack, this is not a problem of this patch, this a problem of your configuration. This patch uses standard clang machinery for locating libiomp5 library. Best regards, Alexey Bataev ============= Software Engineer Intel Compiler Team 13.05.2015 15:59, Jack Howarth пишет: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:58 PM, <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> wrote: >> Jack, >> >> Alexey

[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

It will come on next week. I'd like to give a chance to everyone to raise their objections first. Yours, Andrey > 8 мая 2015 г., в 18:30, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> написал(а): > > Is there a proposed patch yet for switching the -fopenmp support over > to the openmp library instead of libgomp? I realize the call to rename > the library may be

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Congratulations! Would you like to add a blurb to the release notes > for the next release? Sure! Will do. Yours, Andrey

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:59:52AM +0100, Renato Golin wrote: > Tom, code owner nomination. > > Andrey is the most active developer, so I think it makes sense. How > long do we wait to change the file? Is there any process that you'd > like to follow? > I don't think there is a formal process, but usually the file gets updated once Chris approves. -Tom > cheers,

Chandler: 1) I completely agree with the comments some others have made about us needing to make it clear that this isn't some Intel-only thing, it’s the LLVM OpenMP runtime. Some suggestions that I think would make sense to help here: … code owner discussion elided since Chris has endorsed Andrey… - Clearly updating the readme and such would be appropriate. Certainly, no problem with

Hi All, This is a short summary of news and new developments related to OpenMP support in clang / llvm: * ANL (1) and Pathscale contributed OpenMP patch re-based from clang trunk (original version of the patch is based on clang 3.3 release). This is currently under code review, and will be committed to a separate repository: https://github.com/clang-omp/clang_trunk. Kudos to Hal Finkel, Chris

Why is this thread still going? Isn't the most pragmatic choice to just make it a build configuration option and be done? Then whoever is actually packaging it can make the most sensible choice for their needs.. Should I send a patch so this bikeshed thread can die?

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 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

Andrey, Are you still working on this? Thanks again, Hal ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > To: "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:19:32 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [RFC] OpenMP Representation in LLVM IR > > > >

Hal, Our proposal is effectively got scrapped by the community, so we are not pushing any further on the approach we proposed before. How about meeting at the LLVM conference to discuss this? Yours, Andrey On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Andrey, > > Are you still working on this? > > Thanks again, > Hal > > ----- Original

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

Hal, On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > We need to get the build system integration committed and the buildbots > updated to compile it > If you are speaking on libiomp buidbots, they are already established: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libiomp5-clang-x86_64-linux-debian

Hal, > While I think that it will be relatively easy to have the intrinsics > serve as code-motion barriers for other code that might be threads > sensitive (like other external function calls), we would need to think > through exactly how this would work. The easiest thing would be to make > the intrinsics have having unmodeled side effects, although we might > want to do

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 3:15:54 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [RFC] OpenMP Representation in LLVM IR > > Hal, > > > While I think that it will be relatively easy to have 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

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