From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 55300 invoked by alias); 24 May 2017 11:58:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 55278 invoked by uid 89); 24 May 2017 11:58:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=34PM, 34pm X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients 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, 24 May 2017 11:58:13 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6BA8804E5; Wed, 24 May 2017 11:58:15 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com C6BA8804E5 Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jakub@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com C6BA8804E5 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.36.118.76]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D7CC5C886; Wed, 24 May 2017 11:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v4OBwDY5013519; Wed, 24 May 2017 13:58:13 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v4OBwCIo013518; Wed, 24 May 2017 13:58:12 +0200 Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 11:58:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Thomas Schwinge Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, fortran@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: OpenACC 1.0 compatibility: acc_async_wait, acc_async_wait_all Message-ID: <20170524115812.GF8499@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <87r3ygyz9t.fsf@schwinge.name> <8737bwzt2p.fsf@hertz.schwinge.homeip.net> <20170523111726.GT8499@tucnak> <87shjuwk6h.fsf@hertz.schwinge.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87shjuwk6h.fsf@hertz.schwinge.homeip.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg01857.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 01:47:34PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi Jakub! > > On Tue, 23 May 2017 13:17:26 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 07:42:38PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > For OpenACC 1.0 compatibility, we need to provide the aliases > > > acc_async_wait, and acc_async_wait_all for acc_wait, and acc_wait_all, > > > respectively. > > > > OpenACC 1.0 compatibility: acc_async_wait, acc_async_wait_all > > > All I've said about acc_pcopyin applies here too. > > Obviously. ;-) > > > Except that OACC_1.0 > > as symbol version might look like a good idea here. > > GCC never implemented OpenACC 1.0 but directly started with 2.0a, so I > would find it confusing to now starting using 1.0 versions for these > symbols specifically. > > OK for trunk using "OACC_2.0.1" symbol version? Ok. Jakub