On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:50:14PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Templated, and "auto", trailing return type syntax with the C++ OpenACC
> routine directive all works, but doesn't have test coverage. OK for
> trunk?
>
> commit 7a387329674b07b8eb7e07cff665250284b4524b
> Author: Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Thu Jul 7 16:12:15 2016 +0200
>
> C++ OpenACC routine directive testing: templated, and "auto", trailing
> return type syntax
>
> libgomp/
> * testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c++/routine-1-auto.C: New file.
> * testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c++/routine-1-template-auto.C: Likewise.
> * testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c++/routine-1-template-trailing-return-type.C:
> Likewise.
> * testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c++/routine-1-template.C: Likewise.
> * testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c++/routine-1-trailing-return-type.C:
> Likewise.
> * testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/routine-1.c: Adjust.
Ok. Though looking at the testcases, they will crash if malloc fails
and all the allocations of small buffers look kind of pointless.
Wouldn't
s = (int *) malloc (sizeof (int) * n);
g = (int *) malloc (sizeof (int) * n);
w = (int *) malloc (sizeof (int) * n);
v = (int *) malloc (sizeof (int) * n);
gw = (int *) malloc (sizeof (int) * n);
gv = (int *) malloc (sizeof (int) * n);
wv = (int *) malloc (sizeof (int) * n);
gwv = (int *) malloc (sizeof (int) * n);
be better replaced with
int buf[80];
s = buf;
g = s + n;
w = g + n;
...
?
Jakub
