Cesar Philippidis wrote:
It looks OK to me. In fact, I have an identical patch in our internal
branch and I don't know why it didn't make its way upstream or at
least into gomp-4_0-branch. Maybe it got lost after stage 1 closed.
I have now committed it as Rev. 220028.
Tobias
On 01/22/2015 12:08 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> "parallel/kernel loop" is handled by the function being patched (an
> assert ensures that no other directives end here). The first part of the
> function handles the parallel and kernel part, the loop itself should be
> handled by the called function.
"parallel/kernel loop" is handled by the function being patched (an
assert ensures that no other directives end here). The first part of the
function handles the parallel and kernel part, the loop itself should be
handled by the called function. However, it currently passes the
"kernel/parallel
