On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Koval, Julia <julia.ko...@intel.com> wrote: > Yes, you are right, any() is not required. Here is the patch.
Please also attach ChangeLog. The patch is OK for x86 target, it needs global reviewer approval (Maybe Jakub, as the patch touches OMP part). Uros. > Thanks, > Julia > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com] >> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 12:36 PM >> To: Koval, Julia <julia.ko...@intel.com> >> Cc: Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>; Uros Bizjak >> <ubiz...@gmail.com>; GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Kirill Yukhin >> <kirill.yuk...@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake >> >> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:30:10AM +0000, Koval, Julia wrote: >> > Hi, I tried omp_clause_mask and it looks ok. But it lacks check if there >> > is any bit or none. With addition of it(as proposed or in some other way >> > it should work. What do you think about this approach(patch attached)? >> >> Well, I certainly didn't mean to use omp_clause_mask for something >> completely unrelated to OpenMP, the reason I've mentioned it is that it is a >> class that deals with a similar problem. >> >> So, if you want to use the same class, it would need to be moved to some >> generic header, renamed and then c-common.h would typedef that_class >> omp_clause_mask. >> >> I'm surprised you need any, doesn't ((mask & (...)) != 0 already handle >> that? >> >> Jakub >
