From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 424F43858D20 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2023 12:48:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 424F43858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pfeifer.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pfeifer.com Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA46833E87; Sat, 21 Jan 2023 07:48:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from naga.localdomain (188-23-1-149.adsl.highway.telekom.at [188.23.1.149]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A94233E85; Sat, 21 Jan 2023 07:48:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 13:48:04 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Tobias Burnus , Jakub Jelinek cc: gcc-patches Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] gcc-13/changes.html + projects/gomp/: OpenMP update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5f59fa0a-f42d-8e83-0ea0-1f37d656acab@pfeifer.com> References: <008db493-fd5d-b5ca-69ae-369c630c13e6@codesourcery.com> <9a83714b-d74f-3db9-6b93-533f1631c642@pfeifer.com> <3007e1a3-2840-7847-69f4-d5c951ef1e9e@codesourcery.com> <9fb06c5c-b1aa-5dbf-1865-f6d2a33990b3@pfeifer.com> <82d62ca9-06d4-72d7-965b-eab5388fec90@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.10 on 209.68.5.143 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Wed, 18 Jan 2023, Tobias Burnus wrote: > How about the following? I put the other change into its own bullet > point to be less confusing, completely rewording the remaining item and > mention reverse offload support. Thank you, Tobias, for the explanation and the updated patch. As Jakub said, this looks good to go (modulo his one note). Just one question: Does "all clauses are now accepted" refer to - all (as in 100% of possible clauses), or - all (as in a special kind of clause)? (Asking due to the wording in the original version of the patch which felt like the latter.) Gerald