From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27759 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2015 17:11:03 -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 27736 invoked by uid 89); 8 Dec 2015 17:11:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients 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; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 17:11:01 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.43]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1a6Ln0-0004bJ-9k from Cesar_Philippidis@mentor.com ; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 09:10:58 -0800 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:10:57 -0800 Subject: Re: [gomp4] Fix Fortran deviceptr To: James Norris , GCC Patches References: <56644BBC.1050602@codesourcery.com> <5665AC01.2020008@codesourcery.com> <566703BC.7030202@codesourcery.com> CC: , Thomas Schwinge From: Cesar Philippidis Message-ID: <56670F21.8090802@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 17:11:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <566703BC.7030202@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00898.txt.bz2 On 12/08/2015 08:22 AM, James Norris wrote: >> 2. It appears that deviceptr code in GOACC_parallel_keyed is mostly >> identical to GOACC_data_start. Can you put that duplicate code into >> a function? That would be easier to maintain in the long run. >> > > Fixed. Where? I don't see a patch. Since you're working on fortran, can you take a look at how gfc_match_omp_clauses is handling OMP_CLAUSE_DEVICEPTR. It seems overly confusing to me. Could it be done in a similar way as OMP_CLAUSE_COPYIN, i.e., using gfc_match_omp_map_clause? Cesar