On Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Why the random check for a NULL argument? If a NULL argument is valid
(meaning that it makes the code cleaner to allow such arguments rather than
making sure the function isn't called with them), this should be documented
in
the comment above
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I always tend to check for a null pointer before I access the fields in the
structure. In this case it is unnecessary. In some cases (e.g. find_rank)
there is a good chance a null pointer will be passed into the function and
we need to check that
else that you mentioned.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:05 PM
To: Aldy Hernandez
Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [patch] cilkplus array notation for C (clean
On 03/22/13 17:03, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
I have not fixed all the issues below (the big one that is left is the bultin function
representation that Joseph Pointed out). I have fixed most of the other issues. All the
things I have fixed are marked by FIXED!
Don't worry, I can work on the
The specification doesn't seem very clear on to what extent the __sec_*
operations must act like functions (what happens if someone puts parentheses
around the __sec_* name, for example - that wouldn't work with the keyword
approach). So the specification should be clarified there, but I think
On Mar 21, 2013, at 4:33 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
I can look into this later on, but this problem happened even when I replaced
cilkplus' compile.exp, errors.exp, and execute.exp into just an exit. So
it seems unrelated to the cilk patch set.
Ah, I withdraw my objection.
: Re: [patch] cilkplus array notation for C (clean, independent
patchset, take 1)
On Mar 21, 2013, at 4:33 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
I can look into this later on, but this problem happened even when I replaced
cilkplus' compile.exp, errors.exp, and execute.exp into just an exit
On Mar 22, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Iyer, Balaji V balaji.v.i...@intel.com wrote:
I can confirm that renaming scripts to something unique fixed the issue.
That's what others have said, I've not see it first hand.
All these builtins need to be documented in doc/.
DONE!
+initialize builtin functions are stored in @file{array-notation-common.c}. In
+the current array notation implementation there are 12 builtin reduction
+operations. Details about these functions and their usage are available in
On 03/21/13 01:09, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:30:58PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/20/2013 10:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
As I'd mentioned, you have .exp files named compile.exp and execute.exp
which seem to be causing ambiguity problems in parallel checks (make
check
Balaji, please check the corresponding .sum files before and after your patch
to
make sure that the same number of tests are being tested. We have a nifty
script in contrib/compare_tests for this task.
That's how I verify it. (I grep for the ^FAIL in trunk and the applied branch
and make
On 03/21/13 08:06, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Balaji, please check the corresponding .sum files before and after your patch to
make sure that the same number of tests are being tested. We have a nifty
script in contrib/compare_tests for this task.
That's how I verify it. (I grep for the ^FAIL in
-Original Message-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:09 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Jeff Law; Joseph S. Myers; gcc-patches
Subject: Re: [patch] cilkplus array notation for C (clean, independent
patchset,
take 1)
On 03
I have found some little nits that I will point out in a reply to this
message.
Balaji, in Joseph's last review he mentioned:
In find_rank you have error (Rank Mismatch!); - this is not a properly
formatted error message according to the GNU Coding standards (which
typically would not have
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Joseph, folks, et al... How does this look?
This review largely deals with coding style (interpreted broadly). I'll
review more of the substance separately later; reposting with fixes for
all the accumulated issues is probably a good idea anyway, to
Continuing the review for coding style...
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-parser.c b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
+extern bool contains_array_notation_expr (tree);
+extern struct c_expr fix_array_notation_expr (location_t, enum tree_code,
+ struct c_expr);
+extern tree
On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:30:58PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/20/2013 10:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
As I'd mentioned, you have .exp files named compile.exp and execute.exp
which seem to be causing ambiguity problems in
Please see my response below:
-Original Message-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:25 AM
To: Joseph S. Myers
Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches
Subject: Re: [patch] cilkplus array notation for C (clean, independent
patchset,
take 1
On 03/21/13 14:07, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Please see my response below:
-Original Message-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:25 AM
To: Joseph S. Myers
Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches
Subject: Re: [patch] cilkplus array notation for C (clean
On 03/21/13 11:54, Mike Stump wrote:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:30:58PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/20/2013 10:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
As I'd mentioned, you have .exp files named compile.exp and execute.exp
which seem
On 03/20/13 10:30, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I have found some little nits that I will point out in a reply to this
message.
Joseph, folks, et al... How does this look?
Thanks.
Balaji:
+void
+array_notation_init_builtins (void)
+{
+ tree func_type = NULL_TREE;
+ tree new_func = NULL_TREE;
+
Subject: Re: [patch] cilkplus array notation for C (clean, independent
patchset,
take 1)
On 03/20/13 10:30, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I have found some little nits that I will point out in a reply to this
message.
Joseph, folks, et al... How does this look?
Thanks.
Balaji:
+void
On 03/20/2013 10:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
As I'd mentioned, you have .exp files named compile.exp and execute.exp
which seem to be causing ambiguity problems in parallel checks (make
check -jN). For some reason, with this patch, the rest of dg.exp fails
to run after Cilkplus'
23 matches
Mail list logo
