------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-17 00:49 ------- (In reply to comment #9) > Andrew -- > > Since you're unwilling to close this PR, I'll leave it open. However, it's > P5; > I trust OpenMP users to be able to figure out how to find the OpenMP pragmas.
Lets look at it a different way, how easy is it for a GCC user to see that GCC supports OpenMP. It is hard because they have to look at the wrong section to find it does. Yes the news section on the main web page says it exists but that is not an excuse for having not good documentation. Let me also point out there are other extensions which are more documented than OpenMP even ones which are part of a standard like http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Long-Long.html#Long-Long http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Hex-Floats.html#Hex-Floats http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Compound-Literals.html#Compound-Literals http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Mixed-Declarations.html#Mixed-Declarations http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Initializers.html#Initializers Should I continue or can I say that OpenMP is just poorly documented and is inconsistent with the rest of GCC and is really an undocumented extension that can be removed still? Even TLS is not documented the way OpenMP is: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Thread_002dLocal.html#Thread_002dLocal In fact it gives exact edits to the real standard. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P5 |P3 Summary|[4.2 Regression] OpenMP |OpenMP extensions to the C |extensions to the C language|language is not documented |is not documented or |or doumented in the wrong |doumented in the wrong spot |spot http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26154
