From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4183 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2018 13:43:51 -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 3815 invoked by uid 89); 1 Aug 2018 13:43:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*r:0700 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; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 13:43:49 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.90.201]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:256) id 1fkrPn-0006vb-HB from Cesar_Philippidis@mentor.com ; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 06:43:47 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 06:43:45 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH,nvptx] Remove use of 'struct map' from plugin (nvptx) To: Tom de Vries CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" References: <1f1721dd-e1e6-b169-e5e6-d62e5eada1cd@mentor.com> <713db0db-ac26-edde-b185-962830503493@suse.de> From: Cesar Philippidis Message-ID: <96b902ad-9597-7e58-5dec-2ca2e2597db0@mentor.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 13:43:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <713db0db-ac26-edde-b185-962830503493@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-08/txt/msg00083.txt.bz2 On 08/01/2018 04:01 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 07/31/2018 05:12 PM, Cesar Philippidis wrote: >> This is an old patch which removes the struct map from the nvptx plugin. >> I believe at one point this was supposed to be used to manage async data >> mappings, but in practice that never worked out. > > I don't quite understand what rationale you're trying to present here. > > Is this dead code? It's dead code. Cesar