Re: [PING][PATCH] Output DIEs for outlined OpenMP functions in correct lexical scope

2017-10-01 Thread Kevin Buettner
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:08:39 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 01:08:01PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > > Ping. > > Ok, thanks. Committed. Kevin > > On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 17:51:38 -0700 > > Kevin Buettner wrote: > > > > > On Wed,

Re: [PING][PATCH] Output DIEs for outlined OpenMP functions in correct lexical scope

2017-09-22 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 01:08:01PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > Ping. Ok, thanks. > On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 17:51:38 -0700 > Kevin Buettner wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 May 2017 17:24:27 +0200 > > Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > > What I don't like is that the

[PING][PATCH] Output DIEs for outlined OpenMP functions in correct lexical scope

2017-09-21 Thread Kevin Buettner
Ping. On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 17:51:38 -0700 Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Wed, 10 May 2017 17:24:27 +0200 > Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > What I don't like is that the patch is inconsistent, it sets DECL_CONTEXT > > of the child function for all kinds of outlined

Re: [PATCH] Output DIEs for outlined OpenMP functions in correct lexical scope

2017-08-07 Thread Kevin Buettner
On Wed, 10 May 2017 17:24:27 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote: > What I don't like is that the patch is inconsistent, it sets DECL_CONTEXT > of the child function for all kinds of outlined functions, but then you just > choose one of the many places and add it into the BLOCK tree.

Re: [PATCH] Output DIEs for outlined OpenMP functions in correct lexical scope

2017-05-11 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 10:23:59AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: >> On Fri, 5 May 2017 14:23:14 +0300 (MSK) >> Alexander Monakov wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 4 May 2017, Kevin Buettner wrote: >> > > diff --git

Re: [PATCH] Output DIEs for outlined OpenMP functions in correct lexical scope

2017-05-10 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 10:23:59AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Fri, 5 May 2017 14:23:14 +0300 (MSK) > Alexander Monakov wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 May 2017, Kevin Buettner wrote: > > > diff --git a/gcc/omp-expand.c b/gcc/omp-expand.c > > > index 5c48b78..7029951 100644 > >

Re: [PATCH] Output DIEs for outlined OpenMP functions in correct lexical scope

2017-05-05 Thread Kevin Buettner
On Fri, 5 May 2017 14:23:14 +0300 (MSK) Alexander Monakov wrote: > On Thu, 4 May 2017, Kevin Buettner wrote: > > diff --git a/gcc/omp-expand.c b/gcc/omp-expand.c > > index 5c48b78..7029951 100644 > > --- a/gcc/omp-expand.c > > +++ b/gcc/omp-expand.c > > @@ -667,6 +667,25 @@

Re: [PATCH] Output DIEs for outlined OpenMP functions in correct lexical scope

2017-05-05 Thread Alexander Monakov
On Thu, 4 May 2017, Kevin Buettner wrote: > diff --git a/gcc/omp-expand.c b/gcc/omp-expand.c > index 5c48b78..7029951 100644 > --- a/gcc/omp-expand.c > +++ b/gcc/omp-expand.c > @@ -667,6 +667,25 @@ expand_parallel_call (struct omp_region *region, > basic_block bb, Outlined functions are also

Re: [PATCH] Output DIEs for outlined OpenMP functions in correct lexical scope

2017-05-04 Thread Kevin Buettner
Ahem... I forgot to note that: I have bootstrapped and regression tested my patch on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Kevin On Thu, 4 May 2017 17:45:51 -0700 Kevin Buettner wrote: > Consider the following OpenMP program: > > void foo (int a1) {} > > int > main (void) >

[PATCH] Output DIEs for outlined OpenMP functions in correct lexical scope

2017-05-04 Thread Kevin Buettner
Consider the following OpenMP program: void foo (int a1) {} int main (void) { static int s1 = -41; int i1 = 11, i2; for (i2 = 1; i2 <= 2; i2++) { int pass = i2; #pragma omp parallel num_threads (2) firstprivate (i1) {