On 11/11/15 09:50, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
On 11/11/2015 05:40 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 11/10/15 18:08, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
On 11/10/2015 12:35 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I've committed this to gomp4. In preparing the reworked firstprivate
patch changes for gomp4's gimplify.c I disc
On 11/11/2015 05:40 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 11/10/15 18:08, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> On 11/10/2015 12:35 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>> I've committed this to gomp4. In preparing the reworked firstprivate
>>> patch changes for gomp4's gimplify.c I discovered these testcases were
>>> pass
On 11/10/15 18:08, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
On 11/10/2015 12:35 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I've committed this to gomp4. In preparing the reworked firstprivate
patch changes for gomp4's gimplify.c I discovered these testcases were
passing by accident, and lacked a data clause.
It used to be i
On 11/10/2015 12:35 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I've committed this to gomp4. In preparing the reworked firstprivate
> patch changes for gomp4's gimplify.c I discovered these testcases were
> passing by accident, and lacked a data clause.
It used to be if a reduction was on a parallel construct,
I've committed this to gomp4. In preparing the reworked firstprivate patch
changes for gomp4's gimplify.c I discovered these testcases were passing by
accident, and lacked a data clause.
nathan
2015-11-10 Nathan Sidwell
* testsuite/libgomp.oacc-fortran/parallel-reduction.f90: Fix data
m
