> Hi Honza,
>
> attached is the patch to fix the fnspec-strings for the caf-api. I have tested
> it and got no regressions with gcc-testsuite and with the opencoarray's
> testsuite. So that seems fine. Hope this helps and again thank you for your
> instant support on IRC.
Thanks a lot for fixing
Hi Honza,
attached is the patch to fix the fnspec-strings for the caf-api. I have tested
it and got no regressions with gcc-testsuite and with the opencoarray's
testsuite. So that seems fine. Hope this helps and again thank you for your
instant support on IRC.
Regards,
Andre
On Wed, 7
Hi Andre,
On 10/7/20 12:21 PM, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
I am confused. Given that on 2. Oct. 2020 you committed changes to the
caf-fn_spec strings means: you don't need anymore help on this?
Do you mean the change by the patch "Perforate fnspec attribute strings"?
Hi,
I am confused. Given that on 2. Oct. 2020 you committed changes to the
caf-fn_spec strings means: you don't need anymore help on this?
- Andre
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:12:31 +0200
Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch contains basic fixup of the fnspec strings for caf, however I
> am quite
Hi Honza, Tobias,
Yes, I am willing to help and will do so as soon as my small vacation ends
on Monday.
Regards,
Andre
Andre Vehreschild * ve...@gmx.de
Am 30. September 2020 19:12:48 schrieb Tobias Burnus :
Hi Honza,
On 9/30/20 6:12 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
_gfortran_caf_co_sum
Hi Honza,
On 9/30/20 6:12 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
_gfortran_caf_co_sum (gfc_descriptor_t *a __attribute__ ((unused)),
Should have fnspec
".XXWXX"
First dot represents return value, then X is for unused parameters
'X' is definitely wrong. In GCC there is only a stub implementation for
Hi,
this patch contains basic fixup of the fnspec strings for caf, however I
am quite sure I need help on this (short of dropping them all).
I first assumed that we have missing "." for return values since most
strings had as many letters as parametrs, but it is not true.
I tried to check the
