On 11/25/13 08:35, David Malcolm wrote:
I'm not a fan of these "_layout" names, but I'm not sure what better to
call them. Perhaps:
GSS_OMP_PARALLEL_LAYOUT -> GSS_OMP_WITH_CLAUSES_CHILD_FN_DATA_ARG
GSS_OMP_SINGLE_LAYOUT -> GSS_OMP_WITH_CLAUSES
GSS_OMP_ATOMIC_STORE_LAYOUT -> GSS_OMP_WITHOUT_SEQ_WITH_VAL
with analogous names for the corresponding structs.
I think the _layout names are fine for now. We might want change them
to be more descriptive at a later date.
OK for trunk?
Yes.
Sorry again for breaking this.
It happens. I suspect you'll look beyond the sharing of data structures
to build a class hierarchy next time :-)
Thanks for quickly addressing this.
Jeff
