Re: Document OpenACC status for GCC 6

[ Old e-mail alert ] On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Thanks for the review; OK to commit as follows? And then, should > something be added to the "News" section on > itself, too? (I don't know the policy for that. We didn't suggest that > for GCC 5, because

Re: Document OpenACC status for GCC 6

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:26:11AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Index: htdocs/gcc-6/changes.html > === > RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-6/changes.html,v > retrieving revision 1.75 > diff -u -p -r1.75 changes.html LGTM. > --

Re: Document OpenACC status for GCC 6

On 04/22/2016 03:26 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Thanks for the review; OK to commit as follows? And then, should something be added to the "News" section on itself, too? (I don't know the policy for that. We didn't suggest that for GCC 5, because at that time we describe

Re: Document OpenACC status for GCC 6

Hi! On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:19:31 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 04/21/2016 10:21 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > + Code will be offloaded onto multiple gangs, but executes with > > + just one worker, and a vector length of 1. > > "will be" (future) vs "executes" (present). Assumi

Re: Document OpenACC status for GCC 6

On 04/21/2016 10:21 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: + Code will be offloaded onto multiple gangs, but executes with + just one worker, and a vector length of 1. "will be" (future) vs "executes" (present). Assuming this is all supposed to describe current behavior, please write c

Document OpenACC status for GCC 6

Hi! OK to commit (something like) the following? Should something be added to the "News" section on itself? (I don't know the policy for that. We didn't suggest that for GCC 5, because at that time we described the support as a "preliminary implementation of the OpenACC 2