Patchwork [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Tobias Burnus
Date March 8, 2014, 8:05 p.m.
Message ID <531B7825.8030302@net-b.de>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/328241/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Tobias Burnus - March 8, 2014, 8:05 p.m.
Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>> Thank you for catching this. Yes, it should be ABI 1.1

Actually, shouldn't this ABI 1.2? On http://www.cilkplus.org/ - one 
finds the statement: "The new specification (version 1.2) contains 
numerous corrections and clarifications.  No new features were added, 
but the existing features are much more precisely described." - Hence, 
ABI 1.1 should also match ABI version 1.2.

Or should we simply remove the ABI version completely? I have attached 
such a patch?

OK for the trunk / the webserver?

Tobias
Iyer, Balaji V - March 8, 2014, 8:26 p.m.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobias Burnus [mailto:burnus@net-b.de]
> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:06 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; Gerald Pfeifer
> Cc: gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
> 
> Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> >> Thank you for catching this. Yes, it should be ABI 1.1
> 
> Actually, shouldn't this ABI 1.2? On http://www.cilkplus.org/ - one finds the
> statement: "The new specification (version 1.2) contains numerous
> corrections and clarifications.  No new features were added, but the existing
> features are much more precisely described." - Hence, ABI 1.1 should also
> match ABI version 1.2.

1.2 is 1.1 ABI with the language spec reformatted. No new features has been added in between 1.1 and 1.2. So, you can say either one.

> 
> Or should we simply remove the ABI version completely? I have attached
> such a patch?
> 

I would put the ABI version, since the Cilk users will ask for it.

> OK for the trunk / the webserver?
> 
> Tobias
>
Gerald Pfeifer - March 8, 2014, 8:33 p.m.
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> OK for the trunk / the webserver?

Okay.  Go for the previous version with the ABI reference based
on what Iyer wrote.

On Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> 1.2 is 1.1 ABI with the language spec reformatted. No new features 
> has been added in between 1.1 and 1.2. So, you can say either one.

In that case we should use the higher one. :-)

Gerald

Patch

2014-03-08  Tobias Burnus  <burnus@net-b.de>

	* doc/invoke.texi (-fcilkplus): Update implementation
	status.

diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index 2ee091a..8cb551f 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -1888,13 +1888,11 @@  are ignored.
 @cindex Enable Cilk Plus
 Enable the usage of Cilk Plus language extension features for C/C++.
 When the option @option{-fcilkplus} is specified, enable the usage of
-the Cilk Plus Language extension features for C/C++.  The present
-implementation follows ABI version 0.9.  This is an experimental
-feature that is only partially complete, and whose interface may
-change in future versions of GCC as the official specification
-changes.  Currently only the array notation feature of the language
-specification has been implemented.  More features will be implemented
-in subsequent release cycles.
+the Cilk Plus Language extension features for C/C++.  This is an
+experimental feature that is only partially complete, and whose
+interface may change in future versions of GCC as the official
+specification changes.  Currently, all features but @code{_Cilk_for}
+have been implemented.
 
 @item -fgnu-tm
 @opindex fgnu-tm