From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 43426 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2019 16:59:10 -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 43398 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jun 2019 16:59:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*i:sk:00a3906, H*f:sk:00a3906 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:59:09 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA08B307D90D; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:59:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-57.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.57]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB41E6013D; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:59:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Create GCN-specific gthreads To: Andrew Stubbs , Andrew Stubbs , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Fortran List References: <0e6b5110-7e1c-a35a-7e10-be3917748d24@redhat.com> <00a39060-8d8b-f835-e55d-2b3db75f9835@mentor.com> From: Jeff Law Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <83f8c05e-4def-cd3e-a3bd-7703d75abd54@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:59:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <00a39060-8d8b-f835-e55d-2b3db75f9835@mentor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2019-06/txt/msg00116.txt.bz2 On 6/19/19 10:56 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > 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. The contents looked reasonable as well. The changes aren't going to affect any other targets, so you can flesh them out over time as needed. jeff