From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 43406 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2019 16:56:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact fortran-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: fortran-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 40357 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jun 2019 16:56:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:455, H*f:sk:0e6b511, H*i:sk:0e6b511, fall X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:56:45 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:256) id 1hddt3-0005fs-Bw from Andrew_Stubbs@mentor.com ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:56:41 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (137.202.0.90) by svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:56:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Create GCN-specific gthreads To: Jeff Law , Andrew Stubbs , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Fortran List References: <0e6b5110-7e1c-a35a-7e10-be3917748d24@redhat.com> From: Andrew Stubbs Message-ID: <00a39060-8d8b-f835-e55d-2b3db75f9835@mentor.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:56:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0e6b5110-7e1c-a35a-7e10-be3917748d24@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-06/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 On 19/06/2019 17:04, Jeff Law wrote: > On 6/19/19 2:57 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote: >> Ping. >> >> I can probably approve this myself, as it only affects GCN, but I'd >> appreciate a second opinion. > Yes, this would fall under things you could approve yourself. Thanks > for double-checking. Sorry, I meant I'd like another opinion on the patch contents. I'm not confident that I didn't miss something. Andrew