On 11/22/2016 11:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:53:50AM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> I've incorporated those changes in this patch. Is it ok for trunk?
>
> The ChangeLog mentions omp-low.[ch] changes, but the patch doesn't include
> them.
> Have they been dropped, o
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:53:50AM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> I've incorporated those changes in this patch. Is it ok for trunk?
The ChangeLog mentions omp-low.[ch] changes, but the patch doesn't include
them.
Have they been dropped, or moved to another patch?
> 2016-11-22 Cesar Philippid
On 11/18/2016 04:14 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:43:02PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> +error_at (OMP_CLAUSE_LOCATION (c),
>> + "%qs specifies a conflicting level of parallelism",
>> + omp_clause_code_name[OMP_CLAUSE_CODE (c)])
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:43:02PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> + error_at (OMP_CLAUSE_LOCATION (c),
> + "%qs specifies a conflicting level of parallelism",
> + omp_clause_code_name[OMP_CLAUSE_CODE (c)]);
> + inform (OMP_CLAUSE_LOCATION (c_le
Currently GCC lacks support for the bind and nohost clauses in OpenACC
routine. Furthermore, none of the FEs preform much error handling to
detect incompatible acc loops inside those functions.
This patch adds the common middle end components, namely tree codes for
the clauses, and OMP lowering an
