On 07/13/2015 06:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:35:36AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Everything addressed except this, which I'll address as a follow-up:
If you want to spend time on something still in the FE, it would be nice to
resolve the C++ iteration var issue
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 07:06:52AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 07/13/2015 06:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:35:36AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Everything addressed except this, which I'll address as a follow-up:
If you want to spend time on something still in
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:35:36AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
It looks like the C++ bits are quite similar to the C ones. AFAICT, only
numbers are allowed for the sink offsets, so no C++ iterators, which would
likely complicate matters. If they are eventually allowed, we can implement
them
On 07/13/2015 06:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:35:36AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On the C++ FE side, please also try a testcase in g++.dg/gomp/ where
the ordered(n) loop with #pragma omp ordered depend({source,sink}) will be
in a template, to make sure pt.c does
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:11:35AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 07/13/2015 06:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:35:36AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On the C++ FE side, please also try a testcase in g++.dg/gomp/ where
the ordered(n) loop with #pragma omp ordered
It looks like the C++ bits are quite similar to the C ones. AFAICT,
only numbers are allowed for the sink offsets, so no C++ iterators,
which would likely complicate matters. If they are eventually allowed,
we can implement them as a follow up.
The attached patch addresses all your concerns
+ c-iter_vars.safe_push(0);
+ c-iter_vars.pop();
Whoops. Consider this removed. This was left over from some tests I
was doing with the vector.
Aldy
On 07/09/2015 11:53 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:24:44AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Thanks for working on it.
+ wide_int offset = wi::neg (addend, overflow);
+ addend = wide_int_to_tree (TREE_TYPE (addend), offset);
+ if
Hi!
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:24:44AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Thanks for working on it.
+ wide_int offset = wi::neg (addend, overflow);
+ addend = wide_int_to_tree (TREE_TYPE (addend), offset);
+ if (overflow)
+ warning_at (c_parser_peek_token
The following patch goes along with Jakub's parsing of ordered(n) loops.
With it, we can now parse his testcase, along with a variety of other
tests with appropriate diagnostics.
The lowering to gimple is still not done, as we should agree on what
needs to be emitted first.
I'll follow up
10 matches
Mail list logo
