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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
