Re: [PATCH v2] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-05-02 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/02/2017 01:56 AM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: On 2017-05-02 09:16 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: This could be related to --enable-checking=release: In file included from ../../gcc/c-family/c-common.h:26:0, from ../../gcc/c-family/cilk.c:28: ../../gcc/c-family/cilk.c: In function

Re: [PATCH v2] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-05-02 Thread Xi Ruoyao
On 2017-05-02 09:16 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > This could be related to --enable-checking=release: > > In file included from ../../gcc/c-family/c-common.h:26:0, >  from ../../gcc/c-family/cilk.c:28: > ../../gcc/c-family/cilk.c: In function 'bool >

Re: [PATCH v2] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-05-02 Thread Andreas Schwab
This could be related to --enable-checking=release: In file included from ../../gcc/c-family/c-common.h:26:0, from ../../gcc/c-family/cilk.c:28: ../../gcc/c-family/cilk.c: In function 'bool cilk_set_spawn_marker(location_t, tree)': ../../gcc/tree.h:901:42: error: 'tree_check2'

Re: [PATCH v2] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-05-01 Thread Jeff Law
On 04/28/2017 09:20 PM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: On 2017-04-28 08:42 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On 04/28/2017 08:31 AM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: Should I prepare (re-diff) a patch for current trunk? If you want for the trunk, yes. Rediff for current GCC trunk. -- Xi Ruoyao School of

[PATCH v2] Destroy arguments for _Cilk_spawn calling in the child (PR 80038)

2017-04-28 Thread Xi Ruoyao
On 2017-04-28 08:42 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 04/28/2017 08:31 AM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > Should I prepare (re-diff) a patch for current trunk? > If you want for the trunk, yes. Rediff for current GCC trunk. -- Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian