On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote: > "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Iyer, Balaji V >> <balaji.v.i...@intel.com> wrote: >>> Hello Everyone, >>> >>> Here is a link for a new patch (http://software.intel.com/file/38290). >>> This patch is for the "cilkplus" branch and includes the following >>> modifications: >>> >>> 1) Merges changes in the gcc master (SHA1: >>> f326eb816922bc183133c09b25564d550ab9a282). >>> 2) Adds functionality to allow _Cilk_spawn inside constructors and >>> destructors. >>> 3) The original code was storing the cilk_for scope as a tree_chain. This >>> patch modifies it so that it is stored in the same location as FOR_SCOPE(). >>> 4) The presence of a label inside a cilk_for loop was causing an ICE. This >>> patch fixes that. >>> 5) Spawning a spawned function also was causing an ICE. This patch fixes >>> that also. >>> 6) Adds the "__cilk" macro and sets it to 200. >>> 7) Adds test cases for all the fixes mentioned above. >>> 8) Fixes a bug in the libcilkrts runtime during initialization when the >>> number of workers is greater than 3x the number of cores on the system. >>> >> >> I suggest you use separate steps to merge with trunk and fix the >> bugs. Their order isn't important. You should send the bug fixes >> directly to gcc-patches mailing list. > > Also it would be good if you cleaned up your original patch a bit. > I noticed that it has a lot of white space changes to unrelated code, > which makes it hard to figure out what it actually changes. >
Bajaji, Please cleanup the formatting issues on cilkplus branch and please follow GCC coding standard. -- H.J.
