clang-omp merge status?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

clang-omp merge status?

Jack Howarth
Alexey,
      Can you give an update on the status of the merge of the clang-omp changes into cfe trunk and whether those will likely be completed in time for the 3.6 release? In particular, I am interested in when the changes will be complete enough to default -fopenmp to use libiomp5 rather than libgomp. 
       Thanks in advance for any info.
             Jack

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: clang-omp merge status?

Alexey Bataev
Hi Jack,
We have implemented "omp parallel" with almost all clauses (except for
reduction() that I'm working on right now) + "omp for simd". Currently
we have several patches for "omp for" and several other constructs, like
"flush", "atomic" etc. We did not started work on tasks yet.
We hope to complete OpenMP to 3.6 release, but it depends mostly on code
review speed.

Best regards,
Alexey Bataev
=============
Software Engineer
Intel Compiler Team

16.11.2014 18:24, Jack Howarth пишет:
> Alexey,
>       Can you give an update on the status of the merge of the
> clang-omp changes into cfe trunk and whether those will likely be
> completed in time for the 3.6 release? In particular, I am interested
> in when the changes will be complete enough to default -fopenmp to use
> libiomp5 rather than libgomp.
>        Thanks in advance for any info.
>              Jack


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
--
Best regards,
Alexey Bataev
=============
Software Engineer
Intel Compiler Team
Intel Corp.