[LLVMdev] [RFC] OpenMP Representation in LLVM IR

[greened at obbligato.org]

Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes:

Hi Hal,

> As you may know, this is the third such proposal over the past two
> months, one by me
> (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html)

This link seems to be broken.  I missed your earlier proposal and would
like to read it.  As with this proposal, I fear any direct
parallelization support in LLVM is going to take us out of the "low
level" feature of LLVM which is a huge strength.

> and the other, based somewhat on mine, by Sanjoy
> (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-September/053798.html)

I read this proposal quickly.  I don't understand why we need
intrinsics.  Won't calls to runtime routines work just fine?

Ah, Sanjoy had a link to your proposal in his message.

Again, I only skimmed the document, but I was left with the question,
"why not just make calls to runtime routines?"  What is the reason for
the "paralleliation metadata?" It seems to me this implies/requires that
LLVM have knowledge of parallel semantics.  That would be very
unfortunate.

                     -David