On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 04:18:28PM +0000, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > I tried to do this. The thing is, you had me model like this: > > #pragma omp parallel for > _Cilk_for (...) > { > Body > } > > Now, the compiler will do something like this: > > #pragma OMP parallel > { > #pragma Omp for > { > _Cilk_for (...) > Body > } > } > > Now, if by the time it starts to look at evaluating/breaking up the > _Cilk-for's parts, we are already at the scope inside #pragma omp > parallel. If I try to pop here, it has some scope issues with #pragma omp > parallel. This requires a lot of rewrite of existing OMP code to port it > for _Cilk_for. This can be done but will take significant time which I > don't think I have since we are close to end of stage3.
It really doesn't require lots of rewriting, after all, OpenMP handles the C++ iterators very similarly. > We can look into what you want, but in the meantime, can you accept this > patch with the way I have modelled so that the feature can make it into > 4.9? No. In GCC we do not rush in bad changes just because there is time pressure. As Cilk+ is new in GCC 4.9, if you adjust things properly in say 2-3 weeks frame, we might still make an exception and allow it in during stage4, otherwise it will have to wait for 5.0. Jakub