Hi!
I'd still have preferred if that patch described (adding source code
comments) why that special handling is required, but oh well...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:13:40 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang
wrote:
> Tested again with no regressions.
Your gomp-4_0-branch commit of this patch, r237210, forgot to cl
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 03:13:40PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2016/6/2 10:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to pass either a bool openacc_async flag, or
> > whole clauses, down to gfc_trans_omp_reduction_list and handle it there
> > instead of walking the list after the f
On 2016/6/2 10:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to pass either a bool openacc_async flag, or
> whole clauses, down to gfc_trans_omp_reduction_list and handle it there
> instead of walking the list after the fact?
You mean this style? (patch attached)
Tested again with no regress
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:55:05PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> fortran/
> * trans-openmp.c (gfc_trans_omp_clauses): Mark OpenACC reduction
> arguments as addressable when async clause exists.
Wouldn't it be better to pass either a bool openacc_async flag, or
whole clauses, dow
On 2016/6/1 09:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> construct_clauses.lists[OMP_LIST_REDUCTION] = NULL;
>> >oacc_clauses = gfc_trans_omp_clauses (&block, &construct_clauses,
>> >code->loc);
>> > + for (tree c = oacc_clauses; c; c = OMP_CLAUSE_CHAI
On 2016/5/31 05:51 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2016/5/31 3:28 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > On Mon, 30 May 2016 18:53:41 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 10:38:59PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> Hi, a previous patch of Cesar's has made the midd
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 09:32:26PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> 2016-06-01 Chung-Lin Tang
>
> c/
> * c-typeck.c (c_finish_omp_clauses): Mark OpenACC reduction
> arguments as addressable when async clause exists.
>
> cp/
> * semantics.c (finish_omp_clauses): Mark
kly send this follow-up patch, so glossed
over XFAILing.
> For reference, here is a test case, a reduced C version of
> libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c++/template-reduction.C. This test case
> works (without Chung-Lin's "[PATCH, OpenACC] Make reduction arguments
> addressable&q
lways send email about such known regressions, and
XFAIL them with your commit -- that would have saved me an hour
yesterday, when I bisected recent changes to figure out why that test
suddenly fails.)
For reference, here is a test case, a reduced C version of
libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c+
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 10:38:59PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Hi, a previous patch of Cesar's has made the middle-end omp-lowering
> automatically create and insert a tofrom (i.e. present_or_copy) map for
> parallel reductions. This allowed the user to not need explicit
> clauses to copy out t
Hi, a previous patch of Cesar's has made the middle-end omp-lowering
automatically create and insert a tofrom (i.e. present_or_copy) map for
parallel reductions. This allowed the user to not need explicit
clauses to copy out the reduction result, but because reduction arguments
are not marked addr
11 matches
Mail list logo
