[cfe-dev] [RFC][OpenMP][CUDA] Unified Offloading Support in Clang Driver
Samuel F Antao via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Mar 14 19:25:36 PDT 2016
I decided a take shot on a possible implementation for the part of this
proposal that I think is more consensual (i.e. the part that does not
relate with the bundling). I posted three patches (
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18172) with a possible implementation, so that we
have something more concrete to discuss. Let me know your thoughts.
Going back to the bundling discussion:
I agree with Justin when he says that supporting all possible combinations
of host-device bundling, each with a custom format adds a lot of complexity
and does not necessarily helps the user. Therefore, I think reasonable to
have intermediate files bundled in some already existent format (say tar)
that is agnostic of the programming model. Actually, that was my motivation
when I proposed the custom format in the bundler.
When I look at all the different concerns I think that a possible solution
is to have a bundler with three operation modes:
i) "Embed": it generates a host object that contains the device image and
properly defines the symbols a programming model requires. Therefore it can
be linked with host objects successfully. This file is never exposed to the
user unless save-temps is used.
ii) "Bundle": Combines host and device object using, by default, a format
easy to interact with that is agnostic of the programming model.
iii) "Unbundle": The inverse of ii), it assumes the input uses that default
Using a header compatible with tar is not something hard to do, having the
bundler tool as part of clang ensures that it works across operating
systems too. At the same time, this leaves room to have custom-format
bundling activated with options for the cases (would have to be evaluated
one by one) that would greatly benefit of interoperability.
Does this sound reasonable?
2016-03-10 13:59 GMT-05:00 Justin Lebar via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > Justin, is this convincing enough?
> Okay, okay. Uncle.
> There are two things here that I find convincing.
> 1) Although we're not going to be compatible with the details of some,
> if not all, other compilers' formats, we can at least be compatible
> with the spirit by using object files as opposed to tar.
> 2) The postscript in Andrey's e-mail:
> > Re: objdump doesn't understand ELF format with code for multiple
> targets. The same is true for fat executable files as well, isn't? So if we
> need to teach objdump how to recognize fat files, we already have this
> It's probably much more important that objdump work on executables
> than on object files, since if you have object files, you can probably
> recompile with -save-temps, but if you only have an executable, you
> don't necessarily have access to intermediate files, or even a
> compiler for the relevant architecture, much less the specific
> compiler which generated the executable.
> Shoving device code into the host *executable* seems unavoidable. I'm
> still not thrilled with doing the same for object files -- it still
> feels like we're using ELF when we actually want an archive format --
> but (1) makes it less bad.
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Andrey Bokhanko
> <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> wrote:
> > All,
> > I asked Intel GCC guys who implemented OpenMP offloading support in GCC,
> > as they told me, GCC also employs option #4 from Hal's list -- it puts
> > host and target code in a single ELF file. "Code" in GCC case is always
> > GCC's IR (Gimple), though -- they require GCC invocation from linker in
> > order to produce a multi-target executable. This makes GCC
> > with any other offloading compiler and effectively produces its own
> > standard.
> > Thus, prior art from:
> > * nvcc
> > * Pathscale
> > * GCC
> > * ICC
> > indicates only one direction -- compiler driver produces a single object
> > file with target code embedded in data section.
> > Justin, is this convincing enough? I don't see any good reasons why clang
> > should go against what every other compiler on the planet does.
> > Re: objdump doesn't understand ELF format with code for multiple targets.
> > The same is true for fat executable files as well, isn't? So if we need
> > teach objdump how to recognize fat files, we already have this problem.
> > Yours,
> > Andrey
> > =====
> > Software Engineer
> > Intel Compiler Team
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev