On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 03:00:24PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 09/14/2017 12:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Ok with those changes
>
> Hi,
>
> this PR has been fixed on trunk (
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=252873 ).
>
> We cannot count this PR as a 6/7 regression,
On 09/14/2017 12:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Ok with those changes
Hi,
this PR has been fixed on trunk (
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=252873 ).
We cannot count this PR as a 6/7 regression, because this test-case has
been failing since fopenmp was introduced in 4.2
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 07:34:14PM +, de Vries, Tom wrote:
> --- a/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c++/c++.exp
> +++ b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c++/c++.exp
> @@ -22,6 +22,11 @@ dg-init
> # Turn on OpenMP.
> lappend ALWAYS_CFLAGS "additional_flags=-fopenmp"
>
> +# Switch into C++ mode. Otherwis
> I know we don't have
> libgomp.c-c++-common (maybe we should add that)
Like so?
Ran:
- make check-target-libgomp RUNTESTFLAGS=c.exp=cancel-taskgroup-1.c
- make check-target-libgomp RUNTESTFLAGS=c++.exp=cancel-taskgroup-1.c
Currently running make check-target-libgomp.
OK for trunk if tests pa
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:25:22AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> 2017-08-14 Tom de Vries
>
> PR c/81844
Please use PR c/81875 instead, now that you've filed it.
> * c-parser.c (c_parser_omp_for_loop): Fix condition folding.
Fold only operands of cond, not cond itself.
?
> *
Hi,
this patch fixes the wrong-code PR81844, where an omp for loop is
incorrectly removed by the compiler.
Consider the test-case from the patch.
It contains a omp for condition 'i > 0x7fffULL', where i is
of type unsigned long long int.
In c_parser_omp_for_loop, we first hav
