Re: "const" qualifier vs. OpenACC data/OpenMP map clauses

2016-05-13 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 03:50:28PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > Ping. Or should I open a PR for that? I've posted a mail about this to the OpenMP lang committee, will see if something comes out of that. Thanks for bringing this up and yes, a PR is useful. Jakub

Re: "const" qualifier vs. OpenACC data/OpenMP map clauses

2016-05-11 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! Ping. Or should I open a PR for that? On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:47:34 +0200, I wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:21:33 -0700, Cesar Philippidis > wrote: > > This patch fixes a segfault in libgomp.oacc-fortran/non-scalar-data.f90. > > The problem here is that 'n' is a parameter, and the kernels

"const" qualifier vs. OpenACC data/OpenMP map clauses (was: [patch] fix an openacc test case)

2016-04-15 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:21:33 -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > This patch fixes a segfault in libgomp.oacc-fortran/non-scalar-data.f90. > The problem here is that 'n' is a parameter, and the kernels region > implicitly adds a copy clause to n. Naturally, the test segfaults when > it comes ti