I curiously looked into the OpenMP parsing in GCC. It follows the
method of string comparison but *without* maintaining any string table
in a following manner (by switching based on the first character of an
identifier token) . I think, I can also follow the same technique. I
should have done this
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
I curiously looked into the OpenMP parsing in GCC. It follows the
method of string comparison but *without* maintaining any string table
in a following manner (by switching based on the first character of an
identifier
Hi Dmitri,
Thanks for the review. I have taken care of all your comments. With
respect to the use of std::lower_bound() instead of our own binary
search implementation, looks like, it is *not* straightforward as the
search algorithm actually need to operate on a map table which holds
the pair
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dmitri,
Thanks for the review. I have taken care of all your comments. With
respect to the use of std::lower_bound() instead of our own binary
search implementation, looks like, it is *not* straightforward as the
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Chandler Carruth chandl...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dmitri,
Thanks for the review. I have taken care of all your comments. With
respect to the use of std::lower_bound() instead of our own
Hi Chandler,
I reverted back all the changes. I am sorry. I was in an impression
that code is in a good shape to commit as it had went through few
rounds of review. Also, I had misread the line Code can be reviewed
either before it is committed or after from
Hi Mahesha,
I understand it may be difficult to get how things are working here, so let
me explain what I have understood of it (so far). Do mind that I am mostly
a lurker here so my words may be slightly off.
There are two categories of developers working on Clang: those who are
trusted and
Hi Matthieu,
Thanks a lot. It was a very useful information about Clang/LLVM check-in policy.
--
mahesha
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Matthieu Monrocq
matthieu.monr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mahesha,
I understand it may be difficult to get how things are working here, so let
me explain
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Chandler Carruth chandl...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Chandler Carruth chandl...@google.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dmitri,
Thanks for the review. I have taken care of all
Dear All,
Based on the few code review comments that I received recently, I do
think that I should re-visit basic design that I had proposed
initially, and I want to make sure that the community is in agreement
with it, before I proceed further.
The very first design question to be discussed is
Hi Eli,
I have attached fourth patch (patch_4_openmp_parsing_part_1.patch)
along with this mail. Note that, we are far away from complete OpenMP
*parsing* support. However, this patch includes support for basic
OpenMP parsing for *legal* cases *without* support for *OpenMP
clauses* and *syntax
I am sorry. I had missed to include changes to
lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp file. Please find the corrected patch
attached in this mail.
--
mahesha
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Eli,
I have attached fourth patch (patch_4_openmp_parsing_part_1.patch)
Hi Mahesha,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
In revised patch 3, I removed all global variables as you suggested,
and implemented simple *const* string tables using simple binary
search algorithm.
Is it possible to use std::lower_bound()?
Attached are the *revised* patches.
In revised patch 1, which is related to 'fopenmp' support, -v is
replaced by -### as you suggested.
Revised patch 2 is changed a bit. As you indicated too, I felt OpenMP
related stuffs are getting unnecessarily spreading across different
components. I thought
I am sorry, I had forgotten to attach *test cases* for revised patch
2. Please find the same attached in this mail.
--
mahesha
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached are the *revised* patches.
In revised patch 1, which is related to 'fopenmp'
Hi Eli,
Attached (openmp-enum-data-structure-support.patch) is the patch no 3,
which implements the basic data structures required for OpenMP
parsing. At this point, I could not attach any relevant test-case(s)
for this patch. However, when I submit the next patch which will be
related OpenMP
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Eli,
Attached (openmp-enum-data-structure-support.patch) is the patch no 3,
which implements the basic data structures required for OpenMP
parsing. At this point, I could not attach any relevant test-case(s)
for
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Eli Friedman eli.fried...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Eli Friedman eli.fried...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, in my previous mail, I had missed to attach changes to
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Eli Friedman eli.fried...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, in my previous mail, I had missed to attach changes to
clang/include/clang/Basic/TokenKinds.def in the patch 2. Please
refer to the
Hi Eli,
Thanks for all your comments.
I have taken care of all your review comments. Yes, after I gone
through your review
comments, I also came to the conclusion that the addition of a new
class for OpenMP
pragma handling (class PragmaOmpHandler) is not necessarily required.
However, initially,
Sorry, in my previous mail, I had missed to attach changes to
clang/include/clang/Basic/TokenKinds.def in the patch 2. Please
refer to the patch (2) attached in *this* mail, instead of the one
sent in the previous mail. Patch 1 is fine.
--
mahesha
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Mahesha HS
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Eli,
Thanks for all your comments.
I have taken care of all your review comments. Yes, after I gone
through your review
comments, I also came to the conclusion that the addition of a new
class for OpenMP
pragma
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Mahesha HS mahesha.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, in my previous mail, I had missed to attach changes to
clang/include/clang/Basic/TokenKinds.def in the patch 2. Please
refer to the patch (2) attached in *this* mail, instead of the one
sent in the previous mail.
24 matches
Mail list logo
