Ok. Then, let me implement it now in this way. If required we the change logic in future.
-- mahesha On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Mahesha HS <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Hal and Ron, >> >> Here is possibilities, for -fopenmp and -fno-openmp combinations. Is >> it looks okay? >> >> 1. Neither -fopenmp nor -fno-openmp is passed. >> if (Translation unit has OpenMP source) >> Do emit warning. >> else >> Do nothing. >> >> 2. Only -fopenmp is passed >> if (Translation unit has OpenMP source) >> Do process it. >> else >> Do nothing. >> >> 3. Only -fno-openmp is passed >> if (Translation unit has OpenMP source) >> Do nothing >> else >> Do nothing >> >> Note: It is actually no-op. > > Not really, it silenced warnings! > > In general: this seems to agree with how other -fno-foo options work. > > Dmitri > > -- > main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if > (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]>*/ -- mahesha _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
