Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On 03/02/2018 09:36 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:33:40 +, "Koval, Julia" > wrote: >> Hi, this patch removes cilkplus. > > I noticed a few remaining bits, that I convinced myself are obvious > enough; committed to trunk in r258141: > >

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

Hi! On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:33:40 +, "Koval, Julia" wrote: > Hi, this patch removes cilkplus. I noticed a few remaining bits, that I convinced myself are obvious enough; committed to trunk in r258141: commit bd571ec47012c4ee50ef028024276ab02f5c15ec Author: tschwinge

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

Hi, On 01/12/2017 16:43, Jeff Law wrote: On 12/01/2017 03:28 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, On 16/11/2017 16:33, Koval, Julia wrote: // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form. What is the right way to send such big patches? Hi, this patch removes cilkplus. Ok for

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On 12/01/2017 03:28 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > On 16/11/2017 16:33, Koval, Julia wrote: >> // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form.  >> What is the right way to send such big patches? >> >> Hi, this patch removes cilkplus. Ok for trunk? > Now that cilkplus is

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

Hi, On 16/11/2017 16:33, Koval, Julia wrote: // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form. What is the right way to send such big patches? Hi, this patch removes cilkplus. Ok for trunk? Now that cilkplus is gone I suppose we should clean-up Bugzilla about that. Shall

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:25:24PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > grep finds actually tons of further stuff: Here is what I'm bootstrapping/regtesting and will commit if it succeeds as obvious: 2017-12-01 Jakub Jelinek * function.h (struct function): Remove

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:15:20AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/30/2017 09:32 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:54:11AM +, Koval, Julia wrote: > >> Hi, here is the followup patch. Ok for trunk? > >> > >> gcc/c-family/ > >>* c-common.h (inv_list): Remove. > > > > In

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On 11/30/2017 09:32 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:54:11AM +, Koval, Julia wrote: >> Hi, here is the followup patch. Ok for trunk? >> >> gcc/c-family/ >> * c-common.h (inv_list): Remove. > > In function.h I still see > > /* In a Cilk function, the VAR_DECL for

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:54:11AM +, Koval, Julia wrote: > Hi, here is the followup patch. Ok for trunk? > > gcc/c-family/ > * c-common.h (inv_list): Remove. In function.h I still see /* In a Cilk function, the VAR_DECL for the frame descriptor. */ tree cilk_frame_decl; isn't

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:54:11AM +, Koval, Julia wrote: > Hi, here is the followup patch. Ok for trunk? > > gcc/c-family/ > * c-common.h (inv_list): Remove. Ok, thanks. Jakub

RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus

oseph Myers > <jos...@codesourcery.com> > Cc: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>; GCC Patches patc...@gcc.gnu.org> > Subject: Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus > > On 11/23/2017 02:45 AM, Koval, Julia wrote: > > Sorry, I think in this version of this patch they are fixed.

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

ulia.ko...@intel.com> >> Cc: Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>; Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>; GCC >> Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> >> Subject: RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus >> >> This patch version does not appear to address my comment that you'r

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On 11/22/2017 01:38 AM, Koval, Julia wrote: > Hi, > >> So it's not important, but the patch doesn't have the removal of the >> cilk+ testsuite or runtime. BUt again, it's not a big deal, I can guess >> what that part of the patch looks like. > > I used Jakub's suggestion in >

RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus

b Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>; GCC > Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> > Subject: RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus > > This patch version does not appear to address my comment that you're > leaving behind comments in c-parser.c relating to Cilk array notations > whil

RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus

This patch version does not appear to address my comment that you're leaving behind comments in c-parser.c relating to Cilk array notations while removing the subsequent code. (Or in one case actually reindenting the comment that is no longer relevant, rather than removing it.) -- Joseph S.

RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus

gt; Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> > Subject: RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus > > Changes for these files(except sourcebuild one, will fix that) are included in > patch I sent. I only removed from the patch deletion of the folders I > mentioned. > > Julia > > > -

RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus

, 2017 10:11 AM > To: Koval, Julia <julia.ko...@intel.com> > Cc: Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>; Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>; GCC > Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> > Subject: Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus > > Hi Julia, > > >> So it's not imp

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

Hi Julia, >> So it's not important, but the patch doesn't have the removal of the >> cilk+ testsuite or runtime. BUt again, it's not a big deal, I can guess >> what that part of the patch looks like. > > I used Jakub's suggestion in > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg01348.html and

RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus

r 21, 2017 8:41 AM > To: Koval, Julia <julia.ko...@intel.com>; Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> > Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> > Subject: Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus > > On 11/16/2017 10:02 AM, Koval, Julia wrote: > > Thanks for your comments, fixed it

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On 11/16/2017 10:02 AM, Koval, Julia wrote: > Thanks for your comments, fixed it. > > 2017-11-16 Julia Koval > Sebastian Peryt > > * Makefile.def (target_modules): Remove libcilkrts. > * Makefile.in: Ditto. >

RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus

There are places in the c-parser.c changes where there is a comment referring to array notation and you remove the subsequent Cilk-specific code, but not the comment. In at least one such place, the contents of the "else" block that's made unconditional also need to be reindented. -- Joseph

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On 11/16/2017 09:22 AM, Eric Gallager wrote: > On 11/16/17, Koval, Julia wrote: >> // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form. What >> is the right way to send such big patches? >> >> Hi, this patch removes cilkplus. Ok for trunk? > > I'm not a

RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus

rom: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:49 PM > To: Koval, Julia <julia.ko...@intel.com> > Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; l...@redhat.com > Subject: Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:33:40PM +0

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On 11/16/17, Koval, Julia wrote: > // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form. What > is the right way to send such big patches? > > Hi, this patch removes cilkplus. Ok for trunk? I'm not a reviewer, but just as an onlooker, I'd want to see notes

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:33:40PM +, Koval, Julia wrote: > // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form. What > is the right way to send such big patches? Don't include the libcilkrts subtree in the patch nor /cilk-plus/ testcases that are going to be removed? >

Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:33:40PM +, Koval, Julia wrote: > // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form. What > is the right way to send such big patches? You can split the patch and then post each part in a separate e-mail. Easier to review, too. > Hi, this patch