On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 12:34 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/25/13 08:35, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > I'm not a fan of these "_layout" names, but I'm not sure what better to > > call them. Perhaps: > > GSS_OMP_PARALLEL_LAYOUT -> GSS_OMP_WITH_CLAUSES_CHILD_FN_DATA_ARG > > GSS_OMP_SINGLE_LAYOUT -> GSS_OMP_WITH_CLAUSES > > GSS_OMP_ATOMIC_STORE_LAYOUT -> GSS_OMP_WITHOUT_SEQ_WITH_VAL > > with analogous names for the corresponding structs. > I think the _layout names are fine for now. We might want change them > to be more descriptive at a later date. > > > > > OK for trunk? > Yes.
Thanks; committed to trunk as r205428.
