Re: PR85463 '[nvptx] "exit" in offloaded region doesn't terminate process' (was: [patch, libfortran, committed] Implement stop_numeric for minimal targets)

Hi, On Thu, Apr 19 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Per PR85463 '[nvptx] "exit" in offloaded region doesn't terminate > process' that I just filed, we currently have to use "abort" instead of > "exit" for nvptx offloading, so I have applied the following in trunk > r259491, where I completed this

Re: PR85463 '[nvptx] "exit" in offloaded region doesn't terminate process' (was: [patch, libfortran, committed] Implement stop_numeric for minimal targets)

Hi! On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:32:16 +0200, Thomas König wrote: > > Mapping exit to abort is weird, > > For Fortran, this is mapping STOP with a numeric code to abort. > > The Fortran standard does not apply in this case. What does the OpenACC > standard say about STOP in an offloaded region? Noth

Re: PR85463 '[nvptx] "exit" in offloaded region doesn't terminate process' (was: [patch, libfortran, committed] Implement stop_numeric for minimal targets)

> Mapping exit to abort is weird, For Fortran, this is mapping STOP with a numeric code to abort. The Fortran standard does not apply in this case. What does the OpenACC standard say about STOP in an offloaded region? Regards, Thomas

Re: PR85463 '[nvptx] "exit" in offloaded region doesn't terminate process' (was: [patch, libfortran, committed] Implement stop_numeric for minimal targets)

Hi! On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:25:30 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:19:31AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:14:38 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:06:18AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:30:34

Re: PR85463 '[nvptx] "exit" in offloaded region doesn't terminate process' (was: [patch, libfortran, committed] Implement stop_numeric for minimal targets)

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:19:31AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:14:38 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:06:18AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:30:34 +0200, Thomas König wrote: > > > > the recent patch to make t

Re: PR85463 '[nvptx] "exit" in offloaded region doesn't terminate process' (was: [patch, libfortran, committed] Implement stop_numeric for minimal targets)

Hi! On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:14:38 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:06:18AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:30:34 +0200, Thomas König wrote: > > > the recent patch to make the gfortran and libgomp testsuites more > > > standard conforming, by replaci

Re: PR85463 '[nvptx] "exit" in offloaded region doesn't terminate process' (was: [patch, libfortran, committed] Implement stop_numeric for minimal targets)

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:06:18AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:30:34 +0200, Thomas König wrote: > > the recent patch to make the gfortran and libgomp testsuites more > > standard conforming, by replacing CALL ABORT() with STOP N, led > > to numerous testsuite fai

PR85463 '[nvptx] "exit" in offloaded region doesn't terminate process' (was: [patch, libfortran, committed] Implement stop_numeric for minimal targets)

Hi! On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:30:34 +0200, Thomas König wrote: > the recent patch to make the gfortran and libgomp testsuites more > standard conforming, by replacing CALL ABORT() with STOP N, led > to numerous testsuite failures on nvptx because stop_numeric > was not implemented in minimal.c. > >

[patch, libfortran, committed] Implement stop_numeric for minimal targets

Hello world, the recent patch to make the gfortran and libgomp testsuites more standard conforming, by replacing CALL ABORT() with STOP N, led to numerous testsuite failures on nvptx because stop_numeric was not implemented in minimal.c. I have committed the patch below in r259072 as obvious aft