<html><body>
<p><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Hi,</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Thanks for the suggestion - I actually like it.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Yes, the plan was:</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">1. If something is common between BE and LE PPC64 archs, then I would use KMP_ARCH_PPC64 || KMP_ARCH_PPC64LE.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">2. If something only applies to PPC64 BE, then I would use KMP_ARCH_PPC64.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">3. If something only applies to PPC64 LE, then I would use KMP_ARCH_PPC64LE.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">If you feel like this is something critical, I will produce a new patch with the *BE and *LE macros. Otherwise, I will add it in the next patch I am going to produce.</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Thanks</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">-- Carlo</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<img width="16" height="16" src="cid:1__=0ABBF7E9DFC2A7A18f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt="Inactive hide details for C Bergström ---10/23/2014 02:33:22 AM---On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Carlo Bertolli <cbertol@us.i"><font size="2" color="#424282" face="sans-serif">C Bergström ---10/23/2014 02:33:22 AM---On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Carlo Bertolli <cbertol@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi all</font><br>
<br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">From: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">C Bergström <cbergstrom@pathscale.com></font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">To: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Carlo Bertolli/Watson/IBM@IBMUS</font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Cc: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"openmp-dev@dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu" <openmp-dev@dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu></font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Date: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">10/23/2014 02:33 AM</font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Subject: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Re: [Openmp-dev] Patch for PPC64LE architecture</font><br>
<hr width="100%" size="2" align="left" noshade style="color:#8091A5; "><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="3" face="serif">On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Carlo Bertolli <</font><a href="mailto:cbertol@us.ibm.com" target="_blank"><font size="3" color="#0000FF" face="serif"><u>cbertol@us.ibm.com</u></font></a><font size="3" face="serif">> wrote:</font>
<ul style="padding-left: 9pt"><font size="3" face="sans-serif">Hi all</font><font size="3" face="serif"><br>
</font><font size="3" face="sans-serif"><br>
The following patch is to support the PPC64LE (little endian) architecture.</font><font size="3" face="serif"><br>
</font><font size="3" face="sans-serif"><br>
Please note that in the source code I distinguished the two architectures with two different macros (KMP_ARCH_PPC64 and KMP_ARCH_PPC64LE).<br>
However, the two macros are currently always used together and the compilation path is precisely the same.<br>
I did this because I wanted to make sure that in the future we are able to distinguish them.</font><font size="3" face="serif"><br>
<br>
</font><font size="3" face="sans-serif"><br>
Please let me know your thoughts.</font></ul>
<br>
<br>
<font size="3" face="serif">I don't think this is super important, but I would have done the following</font><br>
<br>
<font size="3" face="serif">KMP_ARCH_PPC64 == Things shared for both BE and LE</font><br>
<font size="3" face="serif">KMP_ARCH_PPC64BE == BE specific</font><br>
<font size="3" face="serif">KMP_ARCH_PPC64LE == LE specific</font><br>
<br>
<font size="3" face="serif">Currently in the patch I think you're using KMP_ARCH_PPC64 to mean BE, but in the future if anything is common to both of them will you just use KMP_ARCH_PPC64 || KMP_ARCH_PPC64LE or what's the plan? (They can't always be mutually exclusive - can they?)</font><br>
</body></html>