[LLVMdev] [RFC] OpenMP offload infrastructure

[Sergey Ostanevich]

I believe I should just extend the section regarding the target code.
It can be literally anything that target RTL could support. For Xeon
PHI it will be a linux executable - best for performance, code size,
portability, etc.
For any OpenCL-compatible system this can be SPIR, as you wish. For a
proprietary DSP it can be something else. But it is your (or a vendor)
responsibility to provide a RTL that will be capable to translate this
to the target.

Sergos

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:38 PM, "C. Bergström"
<cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/14 07:32 PM, Das, Dibyendu wrote:
>>
>> Storing llvm-ir in the fat binary may have the same performance issues
>> mentioned below. The fat binary discussed in the proposal has provision for
>> storing the isa/llvm-ir. My point is instead of llvm-ir it shd be something
>> like spir.
>
> Ok - so lets see some data.
>
> #1 Benchmarks showing at least SPIR dgemm/sgemm performance
> #2 Some logical explanation why all the extra work for SPIR when LLVM IR is
> native
>
> Basically besides an opinion or because it's "shiny" some solid technical
> reason.
>
> I hate to repeat myself, but again.. why on earth would a solution which is
> closed source be preferred over llvm ir...