Oops, it did. Thanks for reminding me; I've merged that in r296139.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Hahnfeld, Jonas <hahnf...@itc.rwth-aachen.de> wrote: > Hi Hans, > > Did r295474 fall off your radar? Sorry that I asked for both commits in one > email, should I reply to the other original commit? > > Thanks, > Jonas > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: hwennb...@google.com [mailto:hwennb...@google.com] On Behalf >> Of Hans Wennborg >> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 7:46 PM >> To: Alexey Bataev >> Cc: Hahnfeld, Jonas; cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org >> Subject: Re: r295473 - [OpenMP] Remove barriers at cancel and cancellation >> point >> >> Thanks! r296000. >> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Alexey Bataev <a.bat...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Yes, approved >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Alexey Bataev >> > >> >> 23 февр. 2017 г., в 1:00, Hans Wennborg <h...@chromium.org> >> написал(а): >> >> >> >> Alexey: ping? >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg >> <h...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> I'm Ok with it if Alexey approves. >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Hahnfeld, Jonas >> >>> <hahnf...@itc.rwth-aachen.de> wrote: >> >>>> Hi Hans, Alexey, >> >>>> >> >>>> can we merge this commit and r295474 for the 4.0 release or is it >> >>>> already too late for that? I will totally understand that and can >> >>>> apply these commits locally prior to installing. >> >>>> However, I think that these changes are quite focussed and bear >> >>>> minimal possibility of introducing regressions. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> Jonas >> >>>> >> >>>> Am Freitag, den 17.02.2017, 18:32 +0000 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via >> >>>> cfe-commits: >> >>>> >> >>>> Author: hahnfeld >> >>>> Date: Fri Feb 17 12:32:51 2017 >> >>>> New Revision: 295473 >> >>>> >> >>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=295473&view=rev >> >>>> Log: >> >>>> [OpenMP] Remove barriers at cancel and cancellation point >> >>>> >> >>>> This resolves a deadlock with the cancel directive when there is no >> >>>> explicit cancellation point. In that case, the implicit barrier >> >>>> acts as cancellation point. After removing the barrier after >> >>>> cancel, the now unmatched barrier for the explicit cancellation >> >>>> point has to go as well. >> >>>> >> >>>> This has probably worked before rL255992: With the calls for the >> >>>> explicit barrier, it was sure that all threads passed a barrier before >> exiting. >> >>>> >> >>>> Reported by Simon Convent and Joachim Protze! >> >>>> >> >>>> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30088 >> >>>> >> >>>> Modified: >> >>>> cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/CGOpenMPRuntime.cpp >> >>>> cfe/trunk/test/OpenMP/cancel_codegen.cpp >> >>>> cfe/trunk/test/OpenMP/cancellation_point_codegen.cpp _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
