Re: [Gomp-discuss] TODO proposal

[Lars Segerlund]

 Well I think your effort is very needed :-) ..

 / Thanks, Lars Segerlund.


On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 10:10:55 +0000
Jacob Weismann Poulsen <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> Browsing the web the other day, I stumbled over the GOMP project.
> I am very excited about the idea of bringing openMP 
> support into GCC and I would be happy to contribute to it if I can.
> 
> I better admit that I haven't read through the entire mail-archive
> yet but I have browsed the source code and played a bit with it. 
> I have also tried to compile a TODO for a release 0.1 of GOMP (THIS
> IS JUST A PROPOSAL). I guess that I'm not the only one who hasn't a 
> clear idea of where to begin and a draft for a TODO will at least give 
> us something to talk from. The draft for the TODO is attached. 
> I have tried to keep the ambitions very low in the hope that a
> experimental release within a short time-period (famous last words) 
> is indeed feasible. 
> 
> The status of my playing around with the current source is:
> 
> As for the build environment it now builds a static as well as a 
> shared library and installs them properly. Target 'dist' works for
> gomp but doesn't construct the gcc-gomp source ball mentioned
> in the TODO yet.
> 
> As for the samples in misc they now compile and link (target 'check').
> 
> As for the gcc front-end I have played around with the pragma-handler
> 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 too 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 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 all the samples from app. A are (hopefully correctly :)) validated
> on a line-based basis whenever one passed the 'fgomp' option to the
> gomp-patched gcc.
> 
> Besides continuing to play with the front-end and library implementation, I 
> plan to read through the mail-archive and will then try to boil it down to a 
> short README file for the project.
> 
> Any comments ?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jacob Weismann
> 
> 
> -- 
> <address@hidden>
> Fingerprint: 9315 DC43 D2E4 4F70 3AA8  F8F0 9DA0 B765 F5C8 7D26
>