--- Comment #9 from longb at cray dot com 2009-09-21 21:31 ---
The OpenMP spec does require (requirement is on the user):
"chunk_size must be a loop invariant integer expression with a positive value",
so detection of a chunk size of -7 at run time would be a user-friendly thing
to do.
--- Comment #8 from geir at cray dot com 2009-09-18 18:41 ---
Here is how other compilers process this code:
PGI:
$ pgf90 -mp test.f90
$ ./a.out
Warning: omp_set_num_threads (4) greater than available cpus (2)
tmp, fsize3.141592653589793-7
s =0.000
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-20 04:08 ---
*** Bug 33718 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-21 11:17 ---
Subject: Bug 33439
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 21 11:17:13 2007
New Revision: 128649
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128649
Log:
PR fortran/33439
* gfortran.dg/gomp/pr33439.f90:
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-20 16:42 ---
http://openmp.org/pipermail/omp/2007/001067.html
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-19 17:30 ---
I think the standard is very vague here.
First consider:
!$omp parallel default(none)
call something
!$omp do schedule(static, chunksize)
do i=1,100
call somethingelse
done
!$omp end do
!$omp end parallel
Do
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-17 08:21 ---
> Pedantically this is not a bug. If an omp sentinel doesn't have the desired
> form, it should be handled as a normal comment.
I think your comment is with regards to PR 33445 and not regarding this PR
(PR33439).
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-17 08:18 ---
Pedantically this is not a bug. If an omp sentinel doesn't have the desired
form, it should be handled as a normal comment. As the preceeding line
doesn't end with &, then !$omp& is not a valid omp sentinel (as !$omp
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-17 08:05 ---
Jakub, do you agree that this is a bug or is this no bug?
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
