[GSoC / Question] TREEDEF vs built-in
Project / Subsystem
gcc / gcc
Date
2026-05-28
Proposer
Sebastian Galindo <sebastian.galindo143@gmail.com>
Source type
public_inbox
Consensus
Proposed
Sentiment
—/10
All attributes
- project
- gcc
- subsystem
- gcc
- patch_id
- —
- discussion_id
- DIU1T6HRP07M.3LKSU41B7HOM9@gmail.com
- source_type
- public_inbox
- title
- [GSoC / Question] TREEDEF vs built-in
- headline
- TREEDEF vs built-in for OpenACC directives
- tldr
- A GSoC student asks when to use TREEDEF nodes versus built-in functions for implementing OpenACC directives in GCC.
- proposer
- Sebastian Galindo <sebastian.galindo143@gmail.com>
- consensus
- Proposed
- outcome
- proposed
- sentiment_score
- —
- technical_tradeoffs
- []
- series_id
- —
- series_role
- standalone
- series_parts
- []
- tags
-
- • GSoC
- • OpenACC
- • TREEDEF
- • built-in
- • GCC
- bugzilla_url
- —
- date
- 2026-05-28T00:00:00.000Z
[GSoC / Question] TREEDEF vs built-in
A Google Summer of Code (GSoC) student is seeking guidance on deciding when to represent OpenACC directives as TREEDEF nodes versus built-in functions within the GCC compiler. TREEDEF nodes are used when directives require special optimization or variable treatment, while built-ins are typically used for runtime calls resolved in the front-end. Understanding this distinction is crucial for correctly implementing OpenACC directives and ensuring proper code generation and optimization.