[Openmp-dev] Location for omptarget

[C Bergström via Openmp-dev]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Hahnfeld, Jonas
<Hahnfeld at itc.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: C Bergström [mailto:cbergstrom at pathscale.com]
>> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 8:18 AM
>> To: Hahnfeld, Jonas
>> Cc: Narayanaswamy, Ravi; LLVM-OpenMP (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org)
>> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] Location for omptarget
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Hahnfeld, Jonas via Openmp-dev <openmp-
>> dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I’m fine with putting libomptarget next to libomp as they are both
>> > clearly related to each other and to OpenMP.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > However, I wonder whether it might be a good idea to move both under
>> > the umbrella of parallel-libs in the long term.
>> >
>> > We can still keep the subdomain or make it a redirect, but if LLVM has
>> > a collection of “parallel-libs” I think the OpenMP runtime libraries
>> > should join the fun.
>>
>> Non-binding votes
>>
>> I'm +1 for libomptarget to be named liboffload and made a generic new
>> project. I could potentially help contribute to this. Even if it starts only with a
>> dependency on tasking, the future direction is clear.
>>
>> I'm -1 for libomptarget to be named something confusing or which isn't
>> generic
>
> We already have "liboffload", I don't think that’s a clever name... I'm fine with "libomptarget" but I don't really care too much about the name.

Some semi-sarcastic questions if you don't mind
------------
So are target regions offloaded? What does liboffload do if it doesn't
help a target region get offloaded onto the device? (I realize that
you can implement a target region as tasks, but why can't we leverage
the existing task code to accomplish that then..