On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:56:53AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:44:40 -0800, Cesar Philippidis
ce...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 11/13/2014 08:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Can you please avoid the TODOs in the source? If it is not the right
thing, either do
Hi!
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:33:13 +0100, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:56:53AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:44:40 -0800, Cesar Philippidis
ce...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 11/13/2014 08:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Can you
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
You want
gfc_error (is_oacc (p)
? %s statement at %C leaving OpenACC structured block
: %s statement at %C leaving OpenMP structured block,
gfc_ascii_statement (st));
instead to be more
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:25:52PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
* cpp.c (cpp_define_builtins): Conditionally define _OPENACC.
* dump-parse-tree.c
(show_omp_node): Dump also OpenACC executable statements.
Put (show_omp_node): ... and what fits on the same line as *
On 11/13/2014 08:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:25:52PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
* cpp.c (cpp_define_builtins): Conditionally define _OPENACC.
* dump-parse-tree.c
(show_omp_node): Dump also OpenACC executable statements.
Put (show_omp_node):
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 05:44:40PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
Thanks. I couldn't figure out how to assign the bugs in the PR. Maybe my
account doesn't have permission to do so. Regardless, I'll work on them.
Use your @gcc.gnu.org account instead, then you have far more permissions
in
On 11/13/2014 10:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 05:44:40PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
Thanks. I couldn't figure out how to assign the bugs in the PR. Maybe my
account doesn't have permission to do so. Regardless, I'll work on them.
Use your @gcc.gnu.org account
Hi!
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:44:40 -0800, Cesar Philippidis ce...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 11/13/2014 08:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Can you please avoid the TODOs in the source? If it is not the right
thing, either do something better, or file a PR to schedule such work for
the future.
Hi,
On 11 Nov 08:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For the middle-end and libgomp changes, can you talk to the Intel folks to
update their git branch to latest trunk (so that you have the nvptx bits in
there) and send middle-end and libgomp diffs against that?
As far as I remember, most of the changes
Ilya Verbin wrote:
On 11 Nov 08:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For the middle-end and libgomp changes, can you talk to the Intel folks to
update their git branch to latest trunk (so that you have the nvptx bits in
there) and send middle-end and libgomp diffs against that?
As far as I
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:10:29 +0100
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:43:38PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
I'll post a separate patch with the fortran tests later. If
anyone wants to test this patch, please use gomp-4_0-branch
instead. You don't need a
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +, Julian Brown wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:10:29 +0100
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:43:38PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
I'll post a separate patch with the fortran tests later. If
anyone wants to test
On 11/11/2014 08:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
We've been preparing new patches against trunk for the libgomp and
middle-end bits: I've now posted the former, and the latter are on
their way soon, I believe. The middle-end bits are also present on the
gomp-4_0-branch SVN branch (likewise, the
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:51:01 +0100
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +, Julian Brown wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:10:29 +0100
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
We've been preparing new patches against trunk for the libgomp and
middle-end
Cesar Philippidis wrote:
This patch adds support for OpenACC 2.0a, with some omissions, to the
fortran front end. It only contains the fortran changes from
gomp-4_0-branch, therefore the middle end and runtime changes are a
necessary prerequisite for this patch.
I'd assume that one could
On 11/10/2014 02:08 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Cesar Philippidis wrote:
This patch adds support for OpenACC 2.0a, with some omissions, to the
fortran front end. It only contains the fortran changes from
gomp-4_0-branch, therefore the middle end and runtime changes are a
necessary prerequisite
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:43:38PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
I'll post a separate patch with the fortran tests later. If anyone
wants to test this patch, please use gomp-4_0-branch instead. You
don't need a CUDA accelerator to use
OpenACC, and some of the runtime tests will fail
17 matches
Mail list logo
