[Openmp-dev] (no subject)

[Jack Howarth]

C. Bergström,
        My initial attempts are  just to duplicate the behavior of 'make
compiler=clang' as closely as possible to order to maintain continuity
between the two build approaches. I have been pondering the usage of the
external_symbols.lst file in the build.pl approach. It is unclear to me
that this is really hiding any symbols. Shouldn't we just be passing
-fvisibility=hidden to the c++ compiler and adding explicit instances of

__attribute__ ((visibility ("default")))

to the c++ source files for those symbols we want to export from libiomp?
         Jack


On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:18 AM, "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
wrote:

> On 05/31/14 11:13 AM, Alp Toker wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31/05/2014 06:58, "C. Bergström" wrote:
>>
>>> Jack - you have permission to use/abuse the publicly available PathScale
>>> copyright portions of code in our github repo in accordance with the
>>> license they are published under. I wish there was less stupidity and red
>>> tape around this community, but c'est la vie.
>>>
>>
>> Cool!
>>
>>
>>> /* Seriously, it's not a simple email "OK" is some binding contract
>>> which is like or can replace an actual contributor agreement. */
>>>
>>> Since I have no authority to review OMP related codes it's unlikely I'll
>>> reply or participate further in any of those topics.
>>>
>>
>> Disagree. The authority is for all of us to share and nobody should have
>> told you otherwise.
>>
> last reply - I really don't want to bring this up again or hi-jack the
> author's thread
> clarification - Hal and Chandler have said I'm not qualified to do binding
> review on clang OMP sema or other OMP related changes. As such, others
> would still have to review the changes and I just lost interest to
> participate</end>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/attachments/20140531/158d3cd8/attachment.html>