https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59384
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59384
--- Comment #5 from Nick Tomlinson ---
Hello
I tried the new patch against the suggested revision (patch and revision from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg01170.html). While I was able to
patch and build GCC, I get an incorrect warni
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59384
--- Comment #4 from Nick Tomlinson ---
Created attachment 31944
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31944&action=edit
Example that is broken when the suggested patch is used.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59384
Balaji V. Iyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bviyer at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59384
--- Comment #2 from Nick Tomlinson ---
I tried that patch against the latest CilkPlus branch, but could not apply it.
I also tried building GCC 4.9 from trunk, but could not use cilk_for. Please
could you let me know if there is a branch that supp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59384
--- Comment #1 from Balaji V. Iyer ---
Hi Nick,
I am sorry for taking a while to get back to you. As you can tell from
gcc-patches mailing list, we are actively pursuing to try and push Cilk
Plus into trunk. We have submitted a updated patch
