[Openmp-dev] [RFC] Device runtime library (re)design

[Joel E. Denny via Openmp-dev]

[Adding back the list, which I dropped accidentally.]

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 6:23 PM Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote:

> On 08/08, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> > > > Why do target definitions need to be made available to common
> files?  Is
> > > it
> > > > only for the case that common has source not just headers, and that
> > > source
> > > > must be compiled per device?
> > >
> > > Good question. Yes, and especially when the common source (that is
> > > compiled alone) contains references to template functions/classes which
> > > we can only declare in the common code but need to define in the target
> > > code. The atomic add example below was my motivation. We want a generic
> > > atomic add for various types so templates seemed like a good option but
> > > the definition is target specific. As we discussed before, we might not
> > > want to use templates after all but specify the versions we would
> > > generate explicitly.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, I haven't been following this closely.  Do you have a pointer to
> > that conversation?
>
> I was referring to these:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2019-August/002661.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2019-August/002662.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2019-August/002669.html
>
>
Thanks!

Joel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/attachments/20190808/8a741c6e/attachment.html>