Hi Cesar!
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:05:00 -0700, Cesar Philippidis
wrote:
> [...] I couldn't
> think of a way to test the lto error message because that involves
> having two compilers present. I wonder if it's ok to have libgomp check
> for compiler expected compiler errors? However, that's more o
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 17:24:55 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 06:21:34PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 08:05:00 -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> > > The second point is interesting. Offloaded functions require the "omp
> > > target" attribute or tha
On 07/24/2015 08:21 AM, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 08:05:00 -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> The second point is interesting. Offloaded functions require the "omp
>> target" attribute or that function won't reach the lto compiler. That's
>> fine because not all targets can handl
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 08:05:00 -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> The second point is interesting. Offloaded functions require the "omp
> target" attribute or that function won't reach the lto compiler. That's
> fine because not all targets can handle general code. The problem occurs
> when a user
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 06:21:34PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 08:05:00 -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> > The second point is interesting. Offloaded functions require the "omp
> > target" attribute or that function won't reach the lto compiler. That's
> > fine because not
Jim ran into an ICE in a fortran program which contains an acc vector
loop with a call to a subroutine. There are two things going on in here.
First, a couple of functions in tree-nested.c weren't considering the
_GANG, _WORKER, _VECTOR, and _SEQ omp clause codes. Second, the target
lto compiler wo
