From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19976 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2015 18:04:46 -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 19966 invoked by uid 89); 27 Aug 2015 18:04:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-qk0-f172.google.com Received: from mail-qk0-f172.google.com (HELO mail-qk0-f172.google.com) (209.85.220.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:04:45 +0000 Received: by qkch123 with SMTP id h123so15020951qkc.0 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.55.43.167 with SMTP id r39mr9150901qkr.54.1440698682708; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:181:c000:c497:a2a8:cdff:fe3e:b48? ([2601:181:c000:c497:a2a8:cdff:fe3e:b48]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id s89sm1678399qks.36.2015.08.27.11.04.41 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Aug 2015 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [gomp4, wip] remove references to ganglocal shared memory inside gcc To: Cesar Philippidis , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" References: <55DE69C3.4060707@codesourcery.com> <55DF0CF8.4060101@acm.org> <55DF4807.1040702@codesourcery.com> From: Nathan Sidwell Message-ID: <55DF5139.7070903@acm.org> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55DF4807.1040702@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg01733.txt.bz2 On 08/27/15 13:25, Cesar Philippidis wrote: > On 08/27/2015 06:13 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > I'll create a follow up patch for that later, probably after I finish ok > working on the auto-independent loop patch. In the meantime, I'm found a > bug where acc routine calls aren't being checked for compatible > parallelism. E.g. > > #pragma acc routine gang > void foo (); > > ... > > #pragma acc parallel loop worker > for (...) > foo (); > > The call to foo isn't being reported as an error, which it should. I'm > testing a fix for this. Yeah, I discovered this yesterday, coincidentally when the partition merging optimization blew up. thanks for fixing. nathan