Re: [Gomp-discuss] Frontend ..

[Lars Segerlund]

 Thanks, looking at the patch now.

 One thing that strikes me is that some parts of gomp need's to be shared 
between C/Fortran , such as definitions for clauses and directives, wemight 
even be able to share some of the handlers if done right.

 Any thoughts ?

 / Lars Segerlund.


On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:39:07 +0200
Jacob Weismann Poulsen <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> It is true that I stumbled over GOMP during the spring and that I 
> spent some time browsing and hacking bits of the gcc source (first
> encounter - so it is probably pretty useless) and the source available 
> on the GOMP web pages. The gcc-patch is a rather straightforward dealing 
> with the incomplete proposal for the gcc front-end for GOMP version 0.1, 
> cf. the TODO proposal here: 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gomp-discuss/2004-04/msg00002.html
> 
> The line-based '#pragma omp' syntax check is built around the 
> pragma-handler and based on the c-openmp.c proposal by Steven Bosscher, 
> cf.  http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gomp-discuss/2003-02/msg00076.html.
> I totally agree that putting the openMP pragma handling in the pragma.c
> stub is probably not the right thing to do (it is quite clear from the
> mail archive that Steven and others came to the same conclusion).
> 
> Nevertheless, I have learned from playing with it and others might do
> the same. Moreover, the straightforward approach will give 
> us room for experiments. Say that we wish to play with the data-structures 
> that will be passed from the front-end on to the middle-end/back-end, e.g. 
> simply try to pass some information all the way, then we have a place to 
> hook these things in. That is, the state of my gcc patch is merely for 
> experiments and NOT a proposal for a final front-end solution. The current 
> status is that the samples from app. A (in the openMP specification)
> are (hopefully correctly :)) validated on a line-based basis whenever one 
> passed the 'fgomp' option to the
> patched gcc.
> 
> As to the samples app. A, I had to fix most of the samples to make them 
> compile, 
> link and run which made me hack a bit in the auto* configuration.
> 
> After having spent some hours playing with it I mailed Biagio and asked
> him how to commit patches. He gave me cvs access but I hesitated committing
> it because I was unsure about how you preferred the CVS organized. I recall
> mailing the list with a proposal but I think that it was never resolved.
> Eventually, I mailed some of it to Scott and Biagio (I think as an
> answer to reported build problems with the auto* setup).
> 
> I have by no means lost interest in the GOMP project but I went on vacation
> just after I discovered (and played with) the project and at the time we 
> came back we had to find a new place to live. Finding a new place to live has 
> STOLEN all my spare time ever since - sorry! I plan to spend time on GOMP 
> again soon and the first thing I wish to do is to give Scott some deserved 
> comments on his fine proposals.
> 
> Cheers, Jacob
> 
> PS! I have attached the patch for gcc-3.3. The modifications to the gomp
> project files involves renaming and moving around files. Mailing tarballs
> to the list does not appeal to me. If anyone is interested I can send
> them directly or we can find a place to put them.
> 
> 
> 
> * Biagio Lucini <address@hidden> [2004-09-07 11:00]:
> > Hi Lars - 
> > 
> > On Monday 06 September 2004 16.16, Lars Segerlund wrote:
> > >
> > >   From the discusions lately I have understood that basicly we would like
> > > to bring the OMP stuff into tree-ssa whithout much modification, simply
> > > doing a syntax and context check but not generating something interesting.
> > >
> > 
> > I would suggest you to start from here. First, let us make sure we can 
> > parse 
> > things, then we will decide what to do with that (although I do agree that 
> > all the useful stuff will go to tree-ssa). Jacob has written something 
> > which 
> > was very close to a parser. Maybe we can start from there? I would like 
> > also 
> > to have Jacob's opinion, since so far he has been the developer on this 
> > list 
> > who got closer to have a working parser (for C).
> > 
> > If needed (i.e. some people are working on it) Diego could probably resync 
> > the 
> > branch.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Biagio
> > 
> > -- 
> > =========================================================
> > 
> > Biagio Lucini                                     
> > Institut Fuer Theoretische Physik
> > ETH Hoenggerberg      
> > CH-8093 Zuerich - Switzerland           
> > Tel. +41 (0)1 6332562  
> >  
> > =========================================================
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gomp-discuss mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gomp-discuss
> 
> -- 
> <address@hidden>
> Fingerprint: 9315 DC43 D2E4 4F70 3AA8  F8F0 9DA0 B765 F5C8 7D26
>