On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 11:41 +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:20:23PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > @@ -116,11 +116,10 @@ GOMP_task (void (*fn) (void *), void *data, void (
> > > }
> > >else
> > > fn (data);
> > > - if (team != NULL)
> > > + if (task.c
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:20:23PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > @@ -116,11 +116,10 @@ GOMP_task (void (*fn) (void *), void *data, void (
> > }
> >else
> > fn (data);
> > - if (team != NULL)
> > + if (task.children != NULL)
>
> Why does this not need an acquire barrier
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:01:24PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:22:00PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:19:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > Looks good to me.
> >
> > Thanks for the amazingly quick review! Committed revision 195370.
>
> Ac
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 21:33 +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> SPEComp2012 376.kdtree shows a huge regression after my PR51376 fix,
> with the benchmark, which finishes normally in a few minutes, failing
> to complete after hours of running on a power7 machine. Using a
> reduced data set showed typically
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:22:00PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:19:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Looks good to me.
>
> Thanks for the amazingly quick review! Committed revision 195370.
Actually, there is one thing I'm worried about, -lgomp doesn't link against
-la
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:19:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Looks good to me.
Thanks for the amazingly quick review! Committed revision 195370.
Is the patch OK for 4.7 too?
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 09:33:25PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64-linux. OK to apply?
>
> PR libgomp/51376
> PR libgomp/56073
> * task.c (GOMP_task): Revert 2011-12-09 change.
> (GOMP_taskwait): Likewise. Instead use atomic load wi
