Ping x2.
On 15/5/11 7:19 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
Ping.
On 2015/4/21 08:21 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
Hi,
while investigating some issues in the variable mapping code, I observed
that the GOMP_MAP_POINTER handling is essentially duplicated under the PSET
case.
This patch abstracts and
Hi!
Jakub, for avoidance of doubt, the proposed refactoring makes sense to
me, but does need your approval:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 16:30:40 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
Ping x2.
On 15/5/11 7:19 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
Ping.
On 2015/4/21 08:21 PM, Chung-Lin Tang
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 03:00:16PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Jakub, for avoidance of doubt, the proposed refactoring makes sense to
me, but does need your approval:
This is ok for trunk.
Jakub
Ping.
On 2015/4/21 08:21 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
Hi,
while investigating some issues in the variable mapping code, I observed
that the GOMP_MAP_POINTER handling is essentially duplicated under the PSET
case.
This patch abstracts and unifies the handling code, basically just a cleanup
Hi,
while investigating some issues in the variable mapping code, I observed
that the GOMP_MAP_POINTER handling is essentially duplicated under the PSET
case.
This patch abstracts and unifies the handling code, basically just a cleanup
patch. Ran libgomp tests to ensure no regressions, ok for
