Re: [Gomp-discuss] Pragma idea...

[Steven Bosscher]

I do not favor this approach.

I don't like the idea, because this actually involves more changes to
GCC than just fitting the omp pragmas to GCC's current pragma system. 
It's possible to do it, even with the current yacc C front end.  The
changes to the front end are probably <100 lines, the rest is in new
files.

Bypassing the GCC pragma system would mean you'd have to hack cpplib,
and you'd have to hack it real bad.  In addition to that, having two
separate pragma mechanisms is only more likely a reason for the GCC
community to reject such work.

It may not be easy, but it can be done with the current GCC, and the
good news is that it will only be easier when the new C parser arrives.

Greetz
Steven



Op ma 10-02-2003, om 14:55 schreef Lars Segerlund:
> 
>   I favor this aproach, since it seem's resonable to keep the gomp 
> extensions as separated from mainline gcc as possible in light of the 
> resent discussions.
> 
>   / Lars Segerlund.
> 
> 
> Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > It's early, and I haven't had much sleep, so maybe I'm just blowing foam,
> > but...
> > 
> > All OpenMP pragmas begin "#pragma omp". Given the limits of traditional C
> > progamas, couldn't we implement a separate compilation stream for OpenMP
> > directives? In other words, we bypass the existing #pragma handling when we
> > encounter the specific "#pragma omp" string, and drop into our own
> > semantics?
> > 
> > This approach would eliminate the need to modify the current pragama
> > handling in gcc.
> > 
> > ..Scott
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gomp-discuss mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gomp-discuss
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gomp-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gomp-discuss