On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:44:47AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 07/17/15 10:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:04:30PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >>I'm almost tempted to commit as obvious. I noticed that the callers of
> >>these functions from code generated by mkofflo
On 07/17/15 10:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:04:30PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I'm almost tempted to commit as obvious. I noticed that the callers of
these functions from code generated by mkoffload declare the 2nd arg as an
int, because they have no visibility of the e
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:04:30PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I'm almost tempted to commit as obvious. I noticed that the callers of
> these functions from code generated by mkoffload declare the 2nd arg as an
> int, because they have no visibility of the enum. I thought it wise to make
> the
I'm almost tempted to commit as obvious. I noticed that the callers of these
functions from code generated by mkoffload declare the 2nd arg as an int,
because they have no visibility of the enum. I thought it wise to make the
definitions match.
ok for trunk?
nathan
2015-07-15 Nathan Sidwel
