On 16/02/16 17:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 05:52:55PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
Committed both patches to 4.9 and 5 branches.
In order to run testsuite/libgomp.fortran/declare-simd-4.f90 with the 4.9
branch build, I needed in addition:
- r212268
https://gcc.gnu.org/view
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 05:52:55PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Committed both patches to 4.9 and 5 branches.
>
> In order to run testsuite/libgomp.fortran/declare-simd-4.f90 with the 4.9
> branch build, I needed in addition:
> - r212268
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=2
On 16/02/16 12:11, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:10:29PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
>On 16/02/16 11:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >>>AFAIU, it's not a release regression given that:
> >>>- this has failed since 4.9
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:10:29PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 16/02/16 11:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >>>AFAIU, it's not a release regression given that:
> >>>- this has failed since 4.9.0, and
> >>>- the test-case is not supporte
On 16/02/16 11:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
>AFAIU, it's not a release regression given that:
>- this has failed since 4.9.0, and
>- the test-case is not supported in 4.8,
>so we're not required to fix it in 4.9 and 5 branches.
>
>But, th
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> AFAIU, it's not a release regression given that:
> - this has failed since 4.9.0, and
> - the test-case is not supported in 4.8,
> so we're not required to fix it in 4.9 and 5 branches.
>
> But, the test-case does fail in 5 and 4.9 br
On 16/02/16 03:22, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On 08/02/16 13:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:46:44PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
[ The pass before pass_omp_simd_clone is pass_dispatcher_calls. It has a
function create_target_clone, similar to simd_clone_create, with a
node.defition a
> On 08/02/16 13:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:46:44PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >>[ The pass before pass_omp_simd_clone is pass_dispatcher_calls. It has a
> >>function create_target_clone, similar to simd_clone_create, with a
> >>node.defition and !node.defition part. T
On 08/02/16 13:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:46:44PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
[ The pass before pass_omp_simd_clone is pass_dispatcher_calls. It has a
function create_target_clone, similar to simd_clone_create, with a
node.defition and !node.defition part. The !node.defit
On 10/02/16 17:55, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
The patch fixes the PR on x86_64-apple-darwin15.
OK for stage1 trunk?
What it the reason to delay the fix for a couple of months?
We're in stage4 ( https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00168.html ):
...
trunk is in regression and documentati
The patch fixes the PR on x86_64-apple-darwin15.
> OK for stage1 trunk?
What it the reason to delay the fix for a couple of months?
Thanks for working on the issue.
Dominique
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:46:44PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> [ The pass before pass_omp_simd_clone is pass_dispatcher_calls. It has a
> function create_target_clone, similar to simd_clone_create, with a
> node.defition and !node.defition part. The !node.defition part does not call
> 'symtab->cal
Hi,
Consider libgomp.fortran/declare-simd-3.f90:
...
subroutine bar
use declare_simd_2_mod
real :: b(128)
integer :: i
!$omp simd
do i = 1, 128
b(i) = i * 2.0
end do
!$omp simd
do i = 1, 128
b(i) = foo (7.0_8, 5 * i, b(i))
end do
do i = 1, 128
if (b(i).ne.(7.0 + 1
13 matches
Mail list logo
