On 03/02/2018 09:36 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:33:40 +, "Koval, Julia"
> wrote:
>> Hi, this patch removes cilkplus.
>
> I noticed a few remaining bits, that I convinced myself are obvious
> enough; committed to trunk in r258141:
>
> commit bd571ec47012c4ee5
Hi!
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:33:40 +, "Koval, Julia"
wrote:
> Hi, this patch removes cilkplus.
I noticed a few remaining bits, that I convinced myself are obvious
enough; committed to trunk in r258141:
commit bd571ec47012c4ee50ef028024276ab02f5c15ec
Author: tschwinge
Date: Fri Mar 2 16:35
Hi,
On 01/12/2017 16:43, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/01/2017 03:28 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 16/11/2017 16:33, Koval, Julia wrote:
// I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form.
What is the right way to send such big patches?
Hi, this patch removes cilkplus. Ok for tru
On 12/01/2017 03:28 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16/11/2017 16:33, Koval, Julia wrote:
>> // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form.
>> What is the right way to send such big patches?
>>
>> Hi, this patch removes cilkplus. Ok for trunk?
> Now that cilkplus is g
Hi,
On 16/11/2017 16:33, Koval, Julia wrote:
// I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form. What is
the right way to send such big patches?
Hi, this patch removes cilkplus. Ok for trunk?
Now that cilkplus is gone I suppose we should clean-up Bugzilla about
that. Shall
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:25:24PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> grep finds actually tons of further stuff:
Here is what I'm bootstrapping/regtesting and will commit if
it succeeds as obvious:
2017-12-01 Jakub Jelinek
* function.h (struct function): Remove cilk_frame_decl,
is_
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:15:20AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/30/2017 09:32 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:54:11AM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
> >> Hi, here is the followup patch. Ok for trunk?
> >>
> >> gcc/c-family/
> >>* c-common.h (inv_list): Remove.
> >
> > In
On 11/30/2017 09:32 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:54:11AM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
>> Hi, here is the followup patch. Ok for trunk?
>>
>> gcc/c-family/
>> * c-common.h (inv_list): Remove.
>
> In function.h I still see
>
> /* In a Cilk function, the VAR_DECL for th
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:54:11AM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
> Hi, here is the followup patch. Ok for trunk?
>
> gcc/c-family/
> * c-common.h (inv_list): Remove.
In function.h I still see
/* In a Cilk function, the VAR_DECL for the frame descriptor. */
tree cilk_frame_decl;
isn't tha
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:54:11AM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
> Hi, here is the followup patch. Ok for trunk?
>
> gcc/c-family/
> * c-common.h (inv_list): Remove.
Ok, thanks.
Jakub
akub Jelinek ; GCC Patches patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus
>
> On 11/23/2017 02:45 AM, Koval, Julia wrote:
> > Sorry, I think in this version of this patch they are fixed.
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Joseph
gt;> Cc: Jeff Law ; Jakub Jelinek ; GCC
>> Patches
>> Subject: RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus
>>
>> This patch version does not appear to address my comment that you're
>> leaving behind comments in c-parser.c relating to Cilk array notations
>> while removing t
On 11/22/2017 01:38 AM, Koval, Julia wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> So it's not important, but the patch doesn't have the removal of the
>> cilk+ testsuite or runtime. BUt again, it's not a big deal, I can guess
>> what that part of the patch looks like.
>
> I used Jakub's suggestion in
> https://gcc.gnu.or
Sorry, I think in this version of this patch they are fixed.
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 6:23 PM
> To: Koval, Julia
> Cc: Jeff Law ; Jakub Jelinek ; GCC
> Patches
> Subject: RE: [pa
This patch version does not appear to address my comment that you're
leaving behind comments in c-parser.c relating to Cilk array notations
while removing the subsequent code. (Or in one case actually reindenting
the comment that is no longer relevant, rather than removing it.)
--
Joseph S. M
Added fix for gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
> -Original Message-
> From: Koval, Julia
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:15 AM
> To: Rainer Orth
> Cc: Jeff Law ; Jakub Jelinek ; GCC
> Patches
> Subject: RE: [patch] remove cilk-plus
>
> Changes for these f
, 2017 10:11 AM
> To: Koval, Julia
> Cc: Jeff Law ; Jakub Jelinek ; GCC
> Patches
> Subject: Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus
>
> Hi Julia,
>
> >> So it's not important, but the patch doesn't have the removal of the
> >> cilk+ testsuite or runtime.
Hi Julia,
>> So it's not important, but the patch doesn't have the removal of the
>> cilk+ testsuite or runtime. BUt again, it's not a big deal, I can guess
>> what that part of the patch looks like.
>
> I used Jakub's suggestion in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg01348.html and d
m]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:41 AM
> To: Koval, Julia ; Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus
>
> On 11/16/2017 10:02 AM, Koval, Julia wrote:
> > Thanks for your comments, fixed it.
> >
> > 2017-11-16 Julia Koval
On 11/16/2017 10:02 AM, Koval, Julia wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, fixed it.
>
> 2017-11-16 Julia Koval
> Sebastian Peryt
>
> * Makefile.def (target_modules): Remove libcilkrts.
> * Makefile.in: Ditto.
> * configure: Ditto.
> * configure.ac: Ditto.
There are places in the c-parser.c changes where there is a comment
referring to array notation and you remove the subsequent Cilk-specific
code, but not the comment. In at least one such place, the contents of
the "else" block that's made unconditional also need to be reindented.
--
Joseph S
On 11/16/2017 09:22 AM, Eric Gallager wrote:
> On 11/16/17, Koval, Julia wrote:
>> // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form. What
>> is the right way to send such big patches?
>>
>> Hi, this patch removes cilkplus. Ok for trunk?
>
> I'm not a reviewer, but just as an
vember 16, 2017 4:49 PM
> To: Koval, Julia
> Cc: GCC Patches ; l...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [patch] remove cilk-plus
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:33:40PM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
> > // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form. What
> >
On 11/16/17, Koval, Julia wrote:
> // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form. What
> is the right way to send such big patches?
>
> Hi, this patch removes cilkplus. Ok for trunk?
I'm not a reviewer, but just as an onlooker, I'd want to see notes
about the removal in th
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:33:40PM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
> // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form. What
> is the right way to send such big patches?
Don't include the libcilkrts subtree in the patch nor /cilk-plus/
testcases that are going to be removed?
> Hi,
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:33:40PM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
> // I failed to send patch itself, it is too big even in gzipped form. What
> is the right way to send such big patches?
You can split the patch and then post each part in a separate e-mail.
Easier to review, too.
> Hi, this patch
26 matches
Mail list logo
