On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 11:03:50PM -0600, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/01/2014 11:26 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >+ if (check_no_cilk (cond, "in a condition for a for-loop"))
>
> Why is this one "in" while the others are "as"?
I think "in" was somewhere hard coded in the test suite
and I wanted to m
Andi Kleen writes:
Ping!^3
> Andi Kleen writes:
>
> Ping!^2
>
>> Andi Kleen writes:
>>
>> Ping!
>>
>> Can someone from the C++ side please approve this patch?
>> That's the only patch not approved in this patch kit, but blocking
>> the commit.
>>
>> -Andi
>>
>>> From: Andi Kleen
>>>
>>> Add c
On 10/01/2014 11:26 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
+ if (check_no_cilk (cond, "in a condition for a for-loop"))
Why is this one "in" while the others are "as"?
The patch is OK in any case.
Please ping me directly on C++ patches.
Thanks,
Jason
Andi Kleen writes:
Ping!^2
> Andi Kleen writes:
>
> Ping!
>
> Can someone from the C++ side please approve this patch?
> That's the only patch not approved in this patch kit, but blocking
> the commit.
>
> -Andi
>
>> From: Andi Kleen
>>
>> Add calls for several illegal Cilk cases to the C++ fr
Andi Kleen writes:
Ping!
Can someone from the C++ side please approve this patch?
That's the only patch not approved in this patch kit, but blocking
the commit.
-Andi
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> Add calls for several illegal Cilk cases to the C++ frontend.
> C++ usually doesn't ICE unlike C on ill
From: Andi Kleen
Add calls for several illegal Cilk cases to the C++ frontend.
C++ usually doesn't ICE unlike C on illegal cilk, but it's
better to match C in what is allowed and what is not.
if (_Cilk_spawn ...) is still not errored, but at least it doesn't ICE.
gcc/cp/:
2014-09-30 Andi Klee
