I reviewed this patch. I think this is a good fix.
2011/3/12 Gilmore, Doug <doug.gilm...@amd.com>
> Could a gatekeeper review this change soon?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Doug
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:19 PM
> > To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] request for code review for OpenMP bug 743
> >
> > I forgot to mention that the compile time problem will be fixed with
> > the patch, but the tests will abort unless the patch to bug 742 is also
> > applied.
> >
> > Doug
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 4:27 PM
> > > To: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > Subject: [Open64-devel] request for code review for OpenMP bug 743
> > >
> > > I attached patch that fixes issues exposed by bug 743.
> > >
> > > The problem is that for each program unit, the compiler is currently
> > > generating a new symbol for each thread private pointer array (this
> > > symbol points to the array of pointers that point to the memory
> > > associated each threads version of the symbol).
> > >
> > > This obviously wrong, but it didn't matter since the compiler usually
> > > allocates the thread private array symbol as common, and the
> > assembler
> > > allows multiple common definitions.
> > >
> > > However if the original symbol that is being directed to be thread
> > > private is file scoped, then the assembler complains about having
> > > multiple definitions.
> > >
> > > The fix is that the data structure that maps the user's symbol to the
> > > compiler generated symbol needs to be allocated once.
> > >
> > > Also for safety sake, the patch removes mappings associated with PU
> > > static symbols that are thread private when a new PU is being
> > > processed. I uncovered other problems that I fixed that are included
> > > in this patch. The test example bug743pu.c is a test that exercises
> > > the issues that were fixed (test bug743.c is a test for the main
> > > issue).
> > >
> > > Could a gatekeeper review/approve this patch when they have the
> > chance?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Doug
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
> > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
> > for your organization - today and in the future.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
> > _______________________________________________
> > Open64-devel mailing list
> > Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
> A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
> for your organization - today and in the future.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Open64-devel mailing list
> Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
>
--
Regards,
Lai Jian-Xin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
for your organization - today and in the future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
_______________________________________________
Open64-devel mailing list
Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
