[Openmp-dev] Patch for PPC64LE architecture

[Cownie, James H]

I think it may be worth making the clean-up that Christopher suggested before we push this, unless there is real urgency here.

This patch is adding a lot of
#if KMP_ARCH_PPC64 || KMP_ARCH_PPC64LE
and similar changes, which would be unnecessary if we went to the other scheme.

So you would explicitly define the architecture in the scripts and so on as “ppc64be” or “ppc64le”, and the you would define
KMP_ARCH_PPC64LE or KMP_ARCH_PPC64BE in the compiler flags and have a

#define KMP_ARCH_PPC (KMP_ARCH_PPC64LE || KMP_ARCH_PPC64_BE)

in an appropriate place.

Then all the endian insensitive code would need no changes elsewhere.

I think that could really reduce the number of changes and late rreversions.

-- Jim

James Cownie <james.h.cownie at intel.com>
SSG/DPD/TCAR (Technical Computing, Analyzers and Runtimes)
Tel: +44 117 9071438

From: openmp-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:openmp-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of C Bergström
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:59 PM
To: Carlo Bertolli
Cc: openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] Patch for PPC64LE architecture

It's certainly not critical and a small amount of code churn in the next patch is fine.

This passes my review if someone wants to push it.

Thanks

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/attachments/20141024/31074ea5/attachment.html>