[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with -fopenmp

[Jack Howarth]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:25 AM, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
> >> To: "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <
> llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Douglas Gregor"
> >> <dgregor at apple.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "C Bergström" <
> cbergstrom at pathscale.com>, "Michael Wong"
> >> <fraggamuffin at gmail.com>, "Alexey Bataev" <a.bataev at gmx.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:49:30 AM
> >> Subject: libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with -fopenmp
> >>
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd like to resurrect the discussion on replacing libgomp with
> >> libiomp as the default OpenMP runtime library linked with -fopenmp.
> >>
> >>
> >> For reference, the previous discussion is accessible there:
> >>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140217/thread.html#99461
> >>
> >>
> >> We are very close to getting *full* OpenMP 3.1 specification
> >> supported in clang (only one (!) clause is not implemented yet, and
> >> the patch is already sent for review today:
> >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D9370 ). This implementation generates Intel
> >> API library calls; thus, it can't be used with libgomp and it is
> >> simply logical to link a compatible runtime (libiomp) instead.
> >
> > To be clear, this is now LLVM's OpenMP runtime (not just Intel's), and
> has been ported to several platforms in addition to x86 (PowerPC, ARM).
>
> It doesn't really feel that way. I proposed a cmake patch and the only
> person to review or comment was Intel. (This is coming from the person
> who ported it to ARM)
>
> To stay more agnostic I'd love to see a non-Intel owner. While Hal may
> not be the most active contributor - his reviews are invaluable and
> less biased. I don't know if Hal has the time or interest, but I'd
> nominate him for "owner". I see Tom wants to assign more owners, but
> I'd like to avoid this being an "Intel runtime owned and controlled by
> Intel"
>
>
What results to you get from "-fopenmp=libgomp -Xclang -fopenmp=libgomp" on
the OpenMP3.1_Validation test suite on x86_64 linux? On x86_64 darwin using
libgomp, barely anything passes the verification unlike libiomp5 which only
has one passed test which doesn't verify. Isn't that a serious defect for
libgomp compared to libiomp5?


_______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20150430/11bf6694/attachment.html>