As found by Marcel, the 'depend' clause was differently handled in
'omp depobj(...) depend(...)' and in 'omp task depend(...)'.
The problem was that for a scalar pointer, depobj depended
on the pointer address - while task depended on the pointer-target address.
If one now combines depobj and di
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 11:26:12AM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> As found by Marcel, the 'depend' clause was differently handled in
> 'omp depobj(...) depend(...)' and in 'omp task depend(...)'.
>
> The problem was that for a scalar pointer, depobj depended
> on the pointer address - while task de
Hi!
On 2022-02-15T11:26:12+0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> As found by Marcel, the 'depend' clause was differently handled in
> 'omp depobj(...) depend(...)' and in 'omp task depend(...)'.
(Cross-referencing GCC PR104545 "[OpenMP & Fortran] Pointers issue in
combination of depobj construct and depe
On 15.02.22 11:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 11:26:12AM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
As found by Marcel, the 'depend' clause was differently handled in
'omp depobj(...) depend(...)' and in 'omp task depend(...)'.
As Marcel reported, there was still a problem with c_ptr.
Look
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 06:01:09PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> OK?
Ok.
> Fortran/OpenMP: Fix depend-clause handling for c_ptr
>
> gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
>
> * trans-openmp.cc (gfc_trans_omp_depobj): Fix to alloc/ptr dummy
> and for c_ptr.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> *
Hello gfortran contributors,
can somebody please confirm they would be willing to mentor the Fortran
projects listed at https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SummerOfCode ?
I would also need to know that they are still up-to date and whether
they are large (350 hours) or medium-sized (175 hours). Without all
