Hi Tom! On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:20:16 +0200, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote: > On 12/07/15 11:39, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:50:20 -0400, Nathan Sidwell > > <nathan_sidw...@mentor.com> wrote: > >> it looks like the most recent merge from trunk to gomp4 was early May. I > >> think > >> it is time for another one -- can you handle that? > > > > Indeed :-) -- and, as it happens, resolving the "merge artifacts" is one > > of the things I've been working on last week. I hope I got that all > > right, in particular gcc/tree-parloops.c (Tom), > > I've looked at the merge commit, gcc/tree-parloops.c was not modified.
(Well, it was, but not "substantially".) You'd ported all your trunk commits to gomp-4_0-branch already (thanks!), and in the functions where I got merge conflicts, I just retained the code that was present on gomp-4_0-branch already, which apparently was the right thing to do. ;-) > > gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ch.c (Tom), > > That looks ok. I just wonder whether we could have derived > pass_ch_oacc_kernels from pass_ch instead of from ch_base, avoiding > duplicating the execute function, and have > pass_ch_oacc_kernels::process_loop_p call pass_ch::process_loop_p rather > than inline it. Your call, depending on what makes the most sense regarding the semantics of pass_ch_oacc_kernels. I was just (pleasantly) surprised to find myself (capable of) doing a little C++ programming, with classes, inheritance, and so on. ;-) Grüße, Thomas
pgpKJoS7CjriA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
