On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 01:23:30PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> > On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:03:58AM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >> +/* Callback function to determine if an expression is the
> >> + corresponding variable. */
> >> +
> >> +static int
> > static bool
>
> Most of
Am 28.10.2017 um 00:03 schrieb Thomas Koenig:
+typepedef struct {
That should have been typdef, obviously - the typo
must have slipped in after testing.
Regards
Thomas
On October 28, 2017 12:03:58 AM GMT+02:00, Thomas Koenig
wrote:
>Hello world,
>
>this is a draft patch which interchanges the indices for FORALL and
>DO CONCURRENT loops for cases like PR 82471, where code like
>
> DO CONCURRENT( K=1:N, J=1:M, I=1:L)
> C(I,J,K) = A(I,J,K) + B(I,J,K)
> EN
Hi Steve,
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:03:58AM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
+/* Callback function to determine if an expression is the
+ corresponding variable. */
+
+static int
static bool
Most of the functions in the patch are callback functions for
gfc_code_walker or gfc_expr_walker, resp
Hi Thomas,
In general, I like the idea. I have some minor suggestions below.
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:03:58AM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> +/* Callback function to determine if an expression is the
> + corresponding variable. */
> +
> +static int
static bool
> +has_var (gfc_expr **e, i
Hello world,
this is a draft patch which interchanges the indices for FORALL and
DO CONCURRENT loops for cases like PR 82471, where code like
DO CONCURRENT( K=1:N, J=1:M, I=1:L)
C(I,J,K) = A(I,J,K) + B(I,J,K)
END DO
led to very poor code because of stride issues. Currently,
Graphite i
