Cesar Philippidis wrote:
It looks OK to me. In fact, I have an identical patch in our internal
branch and I don't know why it didn't make its way upstream or at
least into gomp-4_0-branch. Maybe it got lost after stage 1 closed.
I have now committed it as Rev. 220028.
Tobias
On 01/22/2015 12:08 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> "parallel/kernel loop" is handled by the function being patched (an
> assert ensures that no other directives end here). The first part of the
> function handles the parallel and kernel part, the loop itself should be
> handled by the called function.
