From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 62094 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2018 21:25:41 -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 62063 invoked by uid 89); 29 Nov 2018 21:25:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:945 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; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 21:25:39 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:256) id 1gSToX-0000MC-LM from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:25:37 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.90) by svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 21:25:34 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gSToT-0007ol-Fp; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 21:25:33 +0000 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 21:25:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Julian Brown CC: Cesar Philippidis , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Tom de Vries Subject: Re: [patch,openacc] Fix infinite recursion in OMP clause pretty-printing, default label In-Reply-To: <20181129212047.407a0b79@squid.athome> Message-ID: References: <702b2a15-1cd3-7cb9-ad1b-18fb7517a65b@codesourcery.com> <20181129212047.407a0b79@squid.athome> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2018-11/txt/msg02499.txt.bz2 On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Julian Brown wrote: > On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:08:51 -0700 > Cesar Philippidis wrote: > > > Apparently, Tom ran into an ICE when we were adding support for new > > clauses back in the gomp-4_0-branch days. This patch shouldn't be > > necessary because all of the clauses are fully implemented now, but > > it may prevent similar bugs from occurring in the future at least > > during development. > > > > Is this patch OK for trunk? I bootstrapped and regtested it for x86_64 > > Linux with nvptx offloading. > > Joseph, could you take a look at this please? Lots of other places in the same function use gcc_unreachable (). I think using gcc_unreachable () here as well would be more appropriate than special-casing this one place in this function to use "unknown". -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com