Hi Thomas,
On 05.11.19 15:22, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> For your convenience, I'm attaching an incremental patch, to be merged
> into yours.> [...]> With that addressed, OK for trunk.
Thank you. I have merged the patches and committed.
> A few more comments to address separately, later on.
I wi
Hi Frederik!
On 2019-10-29T13:20:53+0100, "Harwath, Frederik"
wrote:
> On 24.10.19 16:31, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> So just C/C++ testing, no Fortran at all. This is not ideal, but
>> probably (hopefully) acceptable given that this is working on the middle
>> end representation shared between a
On 24.10.19 16:31, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi,
I have attached a revised patch.
[...] I was wondering if the way in which the patch
avoids issuing errors about operator switches more than once by modifying the
clauses (cf. the
corresponding comment in omp-low.c) could lead to problems [...]
"
overhead).
> Can the patch be included in trunk?
Normally I might say "OK to commit with the following requests
addressed", but as you're still new, it's maybe a good idea that you post
another revision (as a reply to this email, simply).
A few additional comments/reque
From: Frederik Harwath
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 08:27:58 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Report errors on inconsistent OpenACC nested reduction
clauses
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
OpenACC (cf. OpenACC 2.7, section 2.9.11. "reduction cl
