Hi!
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:30:49 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I've committed this patch to gomp4. The existing implementation of
> firstprivate
> presumes the existence of memory at the CTA level. This patch does away with
> that, treating firstprivate as thread-private variables initialize
On 08/18/15 17:43, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
..., but the following ones remain to be addressed -- could somebody look
into this, please? Especially the timeouts are very annoying. Tests
that now reproducibly XPASS instead of XFAIL should be verified, and the
XFAIL marker removed.
[-PASS:-
Hi!
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:50:21 +0200, I wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:30:49 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > I've committed this patch to gomp4. The existing implementation of
> > firstprivate
> > presumes the existence of memory at the CTA level. This patch does away
> > with
> > that,
Hi!
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:30:49 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I've committed this patch to gomp4. The existing implementation of
> firstprivate
> presumes the existence of memory at the CTA level. This patch does away with
> that, treating firstprivate as thread-private variables initialize
I've committed this patch to gomp4. The existing implementation of firstprivate
presumes the existence of memory at the CTA level. This patch does away with
that, treating firstprivate as thread-private variables initialized from the
host.
During development there was some fallout from decla
