On May 28, 2015 2:03:08 PM GMT+02:00, Mike Stump wrote:
>On May 28, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> wrote:
>>
>> Does anybody have a better suggestion?
>>
>> directive not at the start of a loop at %C
>> directive not followed by a loop at %C
>
>I prefer either of these. I have a s
On May 28, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
>
> Does anybody have a better suggestion?
>
> directive not at the start of a loop at %C
> directive not followed by a loop at %C
I prefer either of these. I have a slight preference for the first.
> Mike, did you tweak the one or
On 3 February 2015 at 01:07, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> wrote:
>> Untested draft patch
>
> I looked it over, seems to slot in nicely.
>
>
> + gfc_error ("% directive does not commence a loop at %C”);
>
> So, don’t like commence here.
Does an
On Feb 2, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
> Untested draft patch
I looked it over, seems to slot in nicely.
+ gfc_error ("% directive does not commence a loop at %C”);
So, don’t like commence here.
Hi,
Some compilers IIRC use !DIR$ unroll, if memory serves me right then
the DEC compiler had !DEC$ unroll.
We could support one or the other three-letter keyword or maybe not.
I think a combination of unroll and ivdep directives is allowed (at
least in some compilers); TODO.
Not sure what other
