On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 18:23:23 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 15:58:18 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 05:45:52PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > > www.cilkplus.org/sites/default/files/open_specifications/Intel_Cilk_plus_lang_spec_1.2.htm
> > > says:
> > > In C++, the control variable shall be declared and initialized within
> > > the
> > > initialization clause of the _Cilk_for loop. The variable shall have
> > > automatic
> > > storage duration. The variable shall be initialized. Initialization may
> > > be
> > > explicit, using assignment or constructor syntax, or implicit via a
> > > nontrivial
> > > default constructor.
> > >
> > > This patch enables constructor-syntax initialization.
> > > Bootstraped and regtested on x86_64-linux. OK for stage1?
> >
> > Does this affect just _Cilk_for or also #pragma simd?
>
> It affects both.
>
> > What about (some_class i { 0 }; some_class < ...; some_class++)
> > and similar syntax?
>
> It's allowed, thanks, I missed this in the initial patch.
>
> > The testsuite coverage is insufficient (nothing e.g.
> > tests templates or #pragma simd).
>
> Patch is updated. Is it sufficient now?
>
>
> gcc/cp/
> * parser.c (cp_parser_omp_for_loop_init): Allow constructor syntax in
> Cilk Plus for-loop initialization.
> gcc/testsuite/
> * g++.dg/cilk-plus/CK/for2.cc: New test.
> * g++.dg/cilk-plus/for5.C: New test.
Ping.
-- Ilya
