Hi Julian,
On 10.12.22 13:10, Julian Brown wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 13:04:20 +0100
Tobias Burnus wrote:
All in all, I am fine with the patch - but I spotted some issues.
...
I believe this patch covers all the above cases (hopefully
appropriately generalised), at least for Fortran. I haven'
On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 13:04:20 +0100
Tobias Burnus wrote:
> All in all, I am fine with the patch - but I spotted some issues.
>
> First, I think you need to set for some error cases mark = 0 to avoid
> duplicated errors. Namely:
>
>! Outputs the error twice ('Symbol ‘y’ present on multiple
> c
Hi Julian:
On 07.12.22 20:13, Julian Brown wrote:
I know that this was the case before, but can you move the mark:1 etc.
after 'tlink'? In that case all bitfields are grouped together.
Thanks for doing so.
I wonder whether that also rejects the following – which seems to be
valid. The 'map' go
tran/107214
* gfortran.h (gfc_symbol): Add data_mark, dev_mark, gen_mark and
reduc_mark bitfields.
* openmp.cc (resolve_omp_clauses): Use above bitfields to improve
duplicate clause detection.
gcc/testsuite/
PR fortran/107214
* gfortran.dg/gomp/pr107214
