Hi!
On Tue, 5 Aug 2014 08:22:50 -0700, Cesar Philippidis
wrote:
> On 07/29/2014 02:07 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:42:48 +0100, I wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:50:44 +0100, I wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:37:24 +0400, Ilmir Usmanov
> >>> wrote:
> Thi
On 07/29/2014 02:07 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:42:48 +0100, I wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:50:44 +0100, I wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:37:24 +0400, Ilmir Usmanov
>>> wrote:
This patch introduces support of OpenACC loop directive (and combined
directiv
Hi Cesar!
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:42:48 +0100, I wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:50:44 +0100, I wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:37:24 +0400, Ilmir Usmanov
> > wrote:
> > > This patch introduces support of OpenACC loop directive (and combined
> > > directives) in C front-end up to GENERIC. Curr
Hi!
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:42:48 +0100, I wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:50:44 +0100, I wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:37:24 +0400, Ilmir Usmanov
> > wrote:
> > > This patch introduces support of OpenACC loop directive (and combined
> > > directives) in C front-end up to GENERIC. Currently
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:27:20AM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > 3) GCC OpenMP implementation supports loop construct without parallel.
It is not about GCC OpenMP implementation, it is the standard that requires
it. If you have an orphaned #pragma omp for e.g., you still can call the
containing
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 03:42:48PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Here are the patches, committed in r208702..4 to gomp-4_0-branch. Jakub,
> are the first two fine for trunk, or shall I wait until stage 1?
Stage1 IMHO.
Jakub
Hi Thomas!
On 20.03.2014 14:21, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
I just realized that this is wrong usage of the dg-excess-errors
directive, for this one will absorb *all* remaining errors, whereas you
just wanted to mask out any »sorry, unimplemented: directive not yet
implemented« ones.
Sorry for that
Hi Ilmir!
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:37:24 +0400, Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
> This patch introduces support of OpenACC loop directive (and combined
> directives) in C front-end up to GENERIC. Currently no clause is allowed.
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/goacc/loop-1.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,8
Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
> On 19.03.2014 23:35, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > Do you intend to support loop constructs that are not nested in a
> > parallel or kernels construct? As I'm reading it, the specification is
> > not clear on this. (I guess I'll raise this question with the OpenACC
> > guys.)
Hi Thomas!
On 19.03.2014 23:35, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Do you intend to support loop constructs that are not nested in a
parallel or kernels construct? As I'm reading it, the specification is
not clear on this. (I guess I'll raise this question with the OpenACC
guys.)
Yes, I do. There are thre
Hi Ilmir!
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:37:24 +0400, Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
> This patch introduces support of OpenACC loop directive (and combined
> directives) in C front-end up to GENERIC. Currently no clause is allowed.
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/goacc/loop-1.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,8
Committed as r208649.
--
Ilmir.
Hi!
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:37:24 +0400, Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
> This patch introduces support of OpenACC loop directive (and combined
> directives) in C front-end up to GENERIC. Currently no clause is allowed.
Thanks! I had worked on a simpler patch, not yet dealing with combined
clauses. Also
Hi Thomas!
This patch introduces support of OpenACC loop directive (and combined
directives) in C front-end up to GENERIC. Currently no clause is allowed.
This patch is necessary to finish implementation of OpenACC 1.0 in
fortran front-end. As you know, OpenACC fortran implementation does
pa
14 matches
Mail list logo
