On 09/07/2014 11:26 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> sorry for the slow review.
No problem. I've been focusing on the subroutine clause lately.
> On 22 August 2014 17:08, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>>> In OpenMP, one has (OMP 4.0, 2.14.3): "A list item that specifies a
>>> given variable may not appear
Dear Cesar,
sorry for the slow review.
On 22 August 2014 17:08, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
In OpenMP, one has (OMP 4.0, 2.14.3): "A list item that specifies a
given variable may not appear in more than one clause on the same
directive, except that a variable may be specified in both firstprivate
On 08/13/2014 01:41 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> According to section 2.6.1 in the openacc spec, fortran loop variables
>> should be implicitly private like in openmp. This patch does just so.
>
> Makes sense. Looking at the patch, I wonder whether the context is
> proper
Hi!
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 22:41:47 +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> > According to section 2.6.1 in the openacc spec, fortran loop variables
> > should be implicitly private like in openmp. This patch does just so.
>
> Makes sense. Looking at the patch, I wonder whether the
Cesar Philippidis wrote:
According to section 2.6.1 in the openacc spec, fortran loop variables
should be implicitly private like in openmp. This patch does just so.
Makes sense. Looking at the patch, I wonder whether the context is
properly handled when mixing OpenMP and OpenACC. I have the f
On 08/11/2014 04:55 PM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> According to section 2.6.1 in the openacc spec, fortran loop variables
> should be implicitly private like in openmp. This patch does just so.
> Also, while working on this patch, I noticed that I made the check for
> variables appearing in multipl
