Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > You want > gfc_error (is_oacc (p) > ? "%s statement at %C leaving OpenACC structured block" > : "%s statement at %C leaving OpenMP structured block", > gfc_ascii_statement (st)); > instead to be mo

"openacc" Bugzilla keyword (was: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end)

Hi! On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:21:47 +0100, I wrote: > created. Committed to gomp-4_0-branch in r217549: commit 4a4f1ca48781ac08d2d51ba1a08210d8c8ca7528 Author: tschwinge Date: Fri Nov 14 10:19:53 2014 + libgomp documentation, R

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

Hi! On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:33:13 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:56:53AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:44:40 -0800, Cesar Philippidis > > wrote: > > > On 11/13/2014 08:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > Can you please avoid the TODOs in the s

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:56:53AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:44:40 -0800, Cesar Philippidis > wrote: > > On 11/13/2014 08:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > Can you please avoid the TODOs in the source? If it is not the right > > > thing, either do something

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

Hi! On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:44:40 -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > On 11/13/2014 08:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Can you please avoid the TODOs in the source? If it is not the right > > thing, either do something better, or file a PR to schedule such work for > > the future. Should we use t

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

On 11/13/2014 10:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 05:44:40PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: >> Thanks. I couldn't figure out how to assign the bugs in the PR. Maybe my >> account doesn't have permission to do so. Regardless, I'll work on them. > > Use your @gcc.gnu.org accoun

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 05:44:40PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > Thanks. I couldn't figure out how to assign the bugs in the PR. Maybe my > account doesn't have permission to do so. Regardless, I'll work on them. Use your @gcc.gnu.org account instead, then you have far more permissions in bugz

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

On 11/13/2014 08:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:25:52PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: >> * cpp.c (cpp_define_builtins): Conditionally define _OPENACC. >> * dump-parse-tree.c >> (show_omp_node): Dump also OpenACC executable statements. > > Put (show_omp_n

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:25:52PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > * cpp.c (cpp_define_builtins): Conditionally define _OPENACC. > * dump-parse-tree.c > (show_omp_node): Dump also OpenACC executable statements. Put (show_omp_node): ... and what fits on the same line as * dump-p

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:51:01 +0100 Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +, Julian Brown wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:10:29 +0100 > > Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > We've been preparing new patches against trunk for the libgomp and > > middle-end bits: I've now posted

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

On 11/11/2014 08:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> We've been preparing new patches against trunk for the libgomp and >> middle-end bits: I've now posted the former, and the latter are on >> their way soon, I believe. The middle-end bits are also present on the >> gomp-4_0-branch SVN branch (likewise

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +, Julian Brown wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:10:29 +0100 > Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:43:38PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > > > >> I'll post a separate patch with the fortran tests later. If > > > >> anyone wants to test thi

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:10:29 +0100 Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:43:38PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > > >> I'll post a separate patch with the fortran tests later. If > > >> anyone wants to test this patch, please use gomp-4_0-branch > > >> instead. You don't need a CUDA

Pending LTO review for OpenACC trunk-merge patches (was: Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end)

Ilya Verbin wrote: > On 11 Nov 08:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > For the middle-end and libgomp changes, can you talk to the Intel folks to > > update their git branch to latest trunk (so that you have the nvptx bits in > > there) and send middle-end and libgomp diffs against that? > > > As far

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

Hi, On 11 Nov 08:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > For the middle-end and libgomp changes, can you talk to the Intel folks to > update their git branch to latest trunk (so that you have the nvptx bits in > there) and send middle-end and libgomp diffs against that? > As far as I remember, most of the chan

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:43:38PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > >> I'll post a separate patch with the fortran tests later. If anyone > >> wants to test this patch, please use gomp-4_0-branch instead. You > >> don't need a CUDA accelerator to use > >> OpenACC, and some of the runtime tests wil

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

On 11/10/2014 02:08 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Cesar Philippidis wrote: >> This patch adds support for OpenACC 2.0a, with some omissions, to the >> fortran front end. It only contains the fortran changes from >> gomp-4_0-branch, therefore the middle end and runtime changes are a >> necessary prereq

Re: [patch] OpenACC fortran front end

Cesar Philippidis wrote: This patch adds support for OpenACC 2.0a, with some omissions, to the fortran front end. It only contains the fortran changes from gomp-4_0-branch, therefore the middle end and runtime changes are a necessary prerequisite for this patch. I'd assume that one could commit

[patch] OpenACC fortran front end

This patch adds support for OpenACC 2.0a, with some omissions, to the fortran front end. It only contains the fortran changes from gomp-4_0-branch, therefore the middle end and runtime changes are a necessary prerequisite for this patch. I'll post a separate patch with the fortran tests later. If a