{"push_id":897091814,"size":12,"distinct_size":12,"ref":"refs/heads/master","head":"946756265bbffd163fea9fc06d5c668e4315ceaf","before":"7542abf8ab93d88e3ffe406371fed8e5ec926500","commits":[{"sha":"ad6c4086a08bc3ba381ea3054386601bd0f8f955","author":{"email":"316f002f21af5ba9752c9bba1f6bc783fdf918a1@users.noreply.github.com","name":"Vassily Litvinov"},"message":"Fixed a bug in reduce intent handling.\n\nThis PR fixes the following issue. Consider the parallel iterator\nthat is used in a forall loop with reduce intent(s). Consider the case\nthat the iterator has a yield inside an on-statement, and that\non-statement is not combined (e.g. via the \"begin+on\" optimization)\nwith a task-parallel construct.\n\nMy implementation of forall intents used to handle such on-statement\nas if it were a task, and tried to apply task intents on it.\nHowever, that is not right: on-statements by themselves are not subject\nto task intents.\n\nThis PR modifies the way my implementation recurses into task-function-like\nFnSymbols. Those not subject to task intents are handled using\nthe newly-introduced recursive propagateRecursively().\nThe other ones are handled using recursive propagateExtraLeaderArgs()\n- no change there.\n\nI am adding two tests that exercise this change:\n\n  ri-iterator-with-on.chpl is perhaps the smallest setup, which I got\n  by trimming down the other test.\n\n  binary-tree-spawn.no-recurse.chpl is what I wrote to simulate\n  binary tree-based spawning as a replacement for\n  \"for loc in Locales do on loc\" without using a recursive iterator.\n  (It works properly only for 1, 3, 7, or 15 locales.)\n\nSeparately - it seems like we do not perform the \"begin+on\" optimization\nfor the case where on-statement is a task in a cobegin.\nTo be addressed separately.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lydia-duncan/chapel/commits/ad6c4086a08bc3ba381ea3054386601bd0f8f955"},{"sha":"578ebccc648f4a3c97439ef5ec7b4ac381475142","author":{"email":"a0eed57aaedf007a763cbac2dd65f90f9fe7ec18@gmail.com","name":"Elliot Ronaghan"},"message":"Add perf annotation for defaulting to qthreads+hwloc for cce\n\nLots of nice perf improvements from this!","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lydia-duncan/chapel/commits/578ebccc648f4a3c97439ef5ec7b4ac381475142"},{"sha":"2092056f4e89b53d1e97e8001ec653cb84b93cff","author":{"email":"801424568fdeda9f30ffa7949021a7e7fd835410@users.noreply.github.com","name":"David Iten"},"message":"Suppress two test failures involving complex for PGI\n\nThe two tests suppressed here get wrong answers when the generated code is\ncompiled with PGI with -O2, but are correct when it is compiled with -O1. They\nhave been failing since we started generating code using C99 complex.\n\nSuppressing them was suggested by @bradcray.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lydia-duncan/chapel/commits/2092056f4e89b53d1e97e8001ec653cb84b93cff"},{"sha":"e67c628a4633afeff9e55e8f3a8e9de75670c718","author":{"email":"a0eed57aaedf007a763cbac2dd65f90f9fe7ec18@gmail.com","name":"Elliot Ronaghan"},"message":"Merge pull request #2985 from ronawho/perf-annotations\n\nAdd perf annotation for defaulting to qthreads+hwloc for cce\r\n\r\nLots of nice perf improvements from this!","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lydia-duncan/chapel/commits/e67c628a4633afeff9e55e8f3a8e9de75670c718"},{"sha":"b8ae15cfe034255e873846e590397c12a6c111cc","author":{"email":"316f002f21af5ba9752c9bba1f6bc783fdf918a1@users.noreply.github.com","name":"Vassily Litvinov"},"message":"Merge pull request #2976 from vasslitvinov/forall-intent-bug-fix\n\nFixed a bug in reduce intent handling.\r\n\r\nThis PR fixes the following issue. Consider the parallel iterator\r\nthat is used in a forall loop with reduce intent(s). Consider the case\r\nthat the iterator has a yield inside an on-statement, and that\r\non-statement is not combined (e.g. via the \"begin+on\" optimization)\r\nwith a task-parallel construct.\r\n\r\nMy implementation of forall intents used to handle such on-statement\r\nas if it were a task, and tried to apply task intents on it.\r\nHowever, that is not right: on-statements by themselves are not subject\r\nto task intents.\r\n\r\nThis PR modifies the way my implementation recurses into task-function-like\r\nFnSymbols. Those not subject to task intents are handled using\r\nthe newly-introduced recursive propagateRecursively().\r\nThe other ones are handled using recursive propagateExtraLeaderArgs()\r\n- no change there.\r\n\r\nI am adding two tests that exercise this change:\r\n\r\n  ri-iterator-with-on.chpl is perhaps the smallest setup, which I got\r\n  by trimming down the other test.\r\n\r\n  binary-tree-spawn.no-recurse.chpl is what I wrote to simulate\r\n  binary tree-based spawning as a replacement for\r\n  \"for loc in Locales do on loc\" without using a recursive iterator.\r\n  (It works properly only for 1, 3, 7, or 15 locales.)\r\n\r\nSeparately - it seems like we do not perform the \"begin+on\" optimization\r\nfor the case where on-statement is a task in a cobegin.\r\nTo be addressed separately.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lydia-duncan/chapel/commits/b8ae15cfe034255e873846e590397c12a6c111cc"},{"sha":"f5a42dd31ccdc81c618ee8cf4edce779adf55fbf","author":{"email":"801424568fdeda9f30ffa7949021a7e7fd835410@users.noreply.github.com","name":"David Iten"},"message":"Merge pull request #2986 from daviditen/pgi-complex-regressions\n\nSuppress two test failures involving complex for PGI\r\n\r\nThe two tests suppressed here get wrong answers when the generated code is\r\ncompiled with PGI with -O2, but are correct when compiled with -O1. They\r\nhave been failing since we started generating code using C99 complex.\r\n\r\nSuppressing them was suggested by @bradcray.\r\n\r\n[trivial, not reviewed]","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lydia-duncan/chapel/commits/f5a42dd31ccdc81c618ee8cf4edce779adf55fbf"},{"sha":"11319264e10cee39ca3843910a170a97f68a57d4","author":{"email":"9efea9f3e732de9799f8e0cd6a4854f20f095f82@users.noreply.github.com","name":"Michael Ferguson"},"message":"Add support in codegenAdd/Sub for ptr + int for LLVM\n\nThe new strings expect code generation to do something\nintelligent with e.g.\n ptr + index\nas a PRIM_ADD/PRIM_SUBTRACT. (where ptr is int8* index is int, e.g.).\n\nHowever, this pattern was not supported with the LLVM backend.  This\npatch adjusts codegenAdd and codegenSub to create the appropriate\ngetelementptr instruction in this case.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lydia-duncan/chapel/commits/11319264e10cee39ca3843910a170a97f68a57d4"},{"sha":"42c96ad3270ba1a115f0e1610f016a72e69f5e21","author":{"email":"9efea9f3e732de9799f8e0cd6a4854f20f095f82@users.noreply.github.com","name":"Michael Ferguson"},"message":"Merge pull request #2988 from mppf/fix-llvm-new-strings\n\nAdd support in codegenAdd/Sub for ptr + int for LLVM\r\n\r\nThe new strings expect code generation to do something\r\nintelligent with e.g.\r\n ptr + index\r\nas a PRIM_ADD/PRIM_SUBTRACT (where ptr is int8* index is int, e.g.).\r\n\r\nHowever, this pattern was not supported with the LLVM backend.  This\r\npatch adjusts codegenAdd and codegenSub to create the appropriate\r\ngetelementptr instruction in this case.\r\n\r\nPassed release/examples/ and extern/ferguson/ with --llvm.\r\nNot reviewed.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lydia-duncan/chapel/commits/42c96ad3270ba1a115f0e1610f016a72e69f5e21"},{"sha":"c2a01a245d452e74e97e161f1d8687fd7a089e40","author":{"email":"316f002f21af5ba9752c9bba1f6bc783fdf918a1@users.noreply.github.com","name":"Vassily Litvinov"},"message":"Removed .bad for crash1callDestructorsMain.chpl\nby popular request, as a source of undue noise in nightly testing.\n\nWhile there, I removed .prediff as well,\nas it was needed only to help match .bad.\n\nAlso updated the current test output mentioned in the .future.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lydia-duncan/chapel/commits/c2a01a245d452e74e97e161f1d8687fd7a089e40"},{"sha":"a332f508e69916fad8ccbbc8beb60d5469d3d0c4","author":{"email":"316f002f21af5ba9752c9bba1f6bc783fdf918a1@users.noreply.github.com","name":"Vassily Litvinov"},"message":"Merge pull request #2992 from vasslitvinov/remove-.bad-for-crash1callDestructorsMain\n\nRemoved .bad for crash1callDestructorsMain.chpl\r\nas a source of undue noise in nightly testing.\r\n\r\nWhile there, I removed .prediff as well,\r\nas it was needed only to help match .bad.\r\n\r\nAlso updated the current test output mentioned in the .future.\r\n\r\nRequested by @bradcray","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lydia-duncan/chapel/commits/a332f508e69916fad8ccbbc8beb60d5469d3d0c4"},{"sha":"a8e70c5034e73da38db247a19474f9da86de1286","author":{"email":"9efea9f3e732de9799f8e0cd6a4854f20f095f82@users.noreply.github.com","name":"Michael Ferguson"},"message":"Remove a passing .future\n\nThere is still a bug to do with breaking out of an iterator, but it seems\nit is not triggered with this program presently.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lydia-duncan/chapel/commits/a8e70c5034e73da38db247a19474f9da86de1286"},{"sha":"946756265bbffd163fea9fc06d5c668e4315ceaf","author":{"email":"9efea9f3e732de9799f8e0cd6a4854f20f095f82@users.noreply.github.com","name":"Michael Ferguson"},"message":"Merge pull request #2993 from mppf/unfuture-break\n\nRemove a passing .future\r\n\r\nThere is still a bug to do with breaking out of an iterator, but it seems\r\nit is not triggered with this program presently. So I have removed\r\nthe .future file.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/lydia-duncan/chapel/commits/946756265bbffd163fea9fc06d5c668e4315ceaf"}]}