On 13/07/15 10:31, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi Tom!
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:20:16 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 12/07/15 11:39, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:50:20 -0400, Nathan Sidwell
wrote:
it looks like the most recent merge from trunk to gomp4 was early May. I think
it i
On 07/12/15 05:39, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:50:20 -0400, Nathan Sidwell
wrote:
it looks like the most recent merge from trunk to gomp4 was early May. I think
it is time for another one -- can you handle that?
Indeed :-) -- and, as it happens, resolving the "merge a
Hi Tom!
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:32:20 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 13/07/15 10:31, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:20:16 +0200, Tom de Vries
> > wrote:
> >> >On 12/07/15 11:39, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> >> >I've looked at the merge commit, gcc/tree-parloops.c was not modified
On 13/07/15 10:31, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi Tom!
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:20:16 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>On 12/07/15 11:39, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> >On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:50:20 -0400, Nathan
Sidwell wrote:
> >>it looks like the most recent merge from trunk to gomp4 was early May. I
t
Hi Tom!
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:20:16 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 12/07/15 11:39, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:50:20 -0400, Nathan Sidwell
> > wrote:
> >> it looks like the most recent merge from trunk to gomp4 was early May. I
> >> think
> >> it is time for another on
On 12/07/15 11:39, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:50:20 -0400, Nathan Sidwell
wrote:
it looks like the most recent merge from trunk to gomp4 was early May. I think
it is time for another one -- can you handle that?
Indeed :-) -- and, as it happens, resolving the "merge a
Hi!
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:50:20 -0400, Nathan Sidwell
wrote:
> it looks like the most recent merge from trunk to gomp4 was early May. I
> think
> it is time for another one -- can you handle that?
Indeed :-) -- and, as it happens, resolving the "merge artifacts" is one
of the things I've be