On 10/06/2014 03:56 AM, Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
> Otherwise, Fortran part looks good for me.
Thanks for the review again! I applied this patch to gomp-4_0-branch now
that the middle end pieces are in place.
Thanks,
Cesar
2014-10-31 Cesar Philippidis
gcc/fortran/
* gfortran.h (struct gfc_omp_c
On 10/06/2014 03:56 AM, Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
> As usual, I'll mostly focus on fortran part, since I don't know CFE and
> ME well enough.
>
> Nevertheless, is there a reason to differ C from Fortran in behavior of
> matching int-expr-list? I mean, in C you support only integer literals
> as parame
Hi Cesar!
Thank you for the update!
On 05.10.2014 02:32, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
On 10/03/2014 07:34 AM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
On 09/24/2014 12:18 AM, Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
Hi Cesar!
Thank you for the patch!
On 24.09.2014 02:29, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
This patch adds support for the a
On 10/03/2014 07:34 AM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> On 09/24/2014 12:18 AM, Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
>> Hi Cesar!
>>
>> Thank you for the patch!
>>
>> On 24.09.2014 02:29, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>>> This patch adds support for the async clause in the wait directive in
>>> fortran. It should be pretty
On 09/24/2014 12:18 AM, Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
> Hi Cesar!
>
> Thank you for the patch!
>
> On 24.09.2014 02:29, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> This patch adds support for the async clause in the wait directive in
>> fortran. It should be pretty straight forward. The fortran FE already
>> supports the
Hi Cesar!
Thank you for the patch!
On 24.09.2014 02:29, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
This patch adds support for the async clause in the wait directive in
fortran. It should be pretty straight forward. The fortran FE already
supports the wait directive, but the async clause was introduced to the
wa
This patch adds support for the async clause in the wait directive in
fortran. It should be pretty straight forward. The fortran FE already
supports the wait directive, but the async clause was introduced to the
wait directive in OpenACC 2.0 and that was missing in gomp-4_0-branch.
Is this OK for g