On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 01:15:43PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> 2018-11-15 Martin Liska
>
> * config/gnu-user.h (TARGET_F951_OPTIONS): New.
> * gcc.c (find_fortran_preinclude_file): New function
> to handle Fortran pre-include.
>
> gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
>
> 2018-11-15
you sure it is a good idea to have the 3 first lines for the same
>> builtin, rather than different?
>>
>> It should be testsuite covered what we do in that case, but with the above
>> you don't cover what happens e.g. with notinbranch alone, or no argument.
>
On 11/17/18 7:16 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> Hi
>
>> I'm sending version, I changed the container to hash_map that should
>> provide
>> faster look up.
>>
>> I've been testing the patch right now.
>
> In find_fortran_preinclude_file() you allocate the filename.
Sure, but that's driver
On 15 November 2018 21:54:23 CET, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Can we use plain -include like in C?
>
>Wouldn't that be confusing whether it is included in preprocessor only
>or if
>it is included as a magic fortran include line at the beginning?
Yes, of course. Forgot that its a cpp argument.
So
Hi
>I'm sending version, I changed the container to hash_map that should
>provide
>faster look up.
>
>I've been testing the patch right now.
In find_fortran_preinclude_file() you allocate the filename.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/scanner.c b/gcc/fortran/scanner.c
index 55d6dafdb5d..4e500f88174
Hi All,
Forget my remark about mp_prop_design.f90. ifort -parallel means just
that and has nothing to do with vectorization.
Sorry for the noise.
Paul
On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 13:29, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I took a few moments away from what I really must be doing to try out
Hi All,
I took a few moments away from what I really must be doing to try out
an earlier version of the patch. There are quite a few CRs in the
patch and the third chunk in gcc.c was rejected, although I cannot see
why. I made a change to scanner.c to prevent the segfault that results
from not
; builtin, rather than different?
>
> It should be testsuite covered what we do in that case, but with the above
> you don't cover what happens e.g. with notinbranch alone, or no argument.
>
> Plus, as I said, I think you should have one *.f and one *.f90 test where
> you just use many
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 02:24:42PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> + if (gfc_match (" (%n) attributes simd", builtin) != MATCH_YES)
> +return MATCH_ERROR;
> +
> + int builtin_kind = 0;
> + if (gfc_match (" (notinbranch)") == MATCH_YES)
I think you need " ( notinbranch )" here.
> +
tch. It's tested on
x86_64-linux-gnu,
where it survives regression tests and bootstraps.
I hope I addressed all notes that Jakub provided.
Thanks,
Martin
>From 958b29507153e923e08f79e754ed3e2e95bbec91 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 12:41:19 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] S
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 08:40:13PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 14 November 2018 12:35:27 CET, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >> --- a/gcc/config/gnu-user.h
> >> +++ b/gcc/config/gnu-user.h
> >> @@ -170,3 +170,6 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME
> >respectively. If not, see
On 14 November 2018 12:35:27 CET, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/config/gnu-user.h
>> +++ b/gcc/config/gnu-user.h
>> @@ -170,3 +170,6 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME
>respectively. If not, see
>>LD_STATIC_OPTION " --whole-archive -llsan --no-whole-archive " \
>>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 03:09:49PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> > So omp-simd-notinbranch or omp_simd_notinbranch?
> > Any particular reason for this weird syntax and for not also
> > supporting inbranch or just simd?
>
> Questionable whether to support as current glibc vector ABI only uses
>
On 11/14/18 12:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 11:06:04AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Question I have is about default search locations for the header file. On my
>> machine I can
>> see:
>>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:35:27PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > +
> > + When we come here, we have already matched the !GCC$ builtin string. */
> > +match
> > +gfc_match_gcc_builtin (void)
> > +{
> > + char builtin[GFC_MAX_SYMBOL_LEN + 1];
> > +
> > + if (gfc_match_name (builtin) !=
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:56:26PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> One possibility is
> if (gfc_match ("(%n) attributes simd", name) == MATCH_YES)
" (%n) attributes simd" to be precise, so that whitespace is allowed
in free form between builtin and (. And the following parsing might be
" (
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 11:06:04AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> Question I have is about default search locations for the header file. On my
> machine I can
> see:
> access("/home/marxin/bin/gcc2/lib64/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.0/math-vector-fortran.h",
> R_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
ies, instead of include locations?
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Martin
>From 53579915be2f2566d2bbf8ba52175762b8cea7ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 12:41:19 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Support simd function declarations via a pre-include.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-11-14 Martin Liska
18 matches
Mail list logo
