Hi Sandra,
Am 16.07.24 um 19:03 schrieb Sandra Loosemore:
Well, I still do not understand why backward compatibility concerns
specific to some other directive should affect the ABI for a new
directive that does not have any current libgomp runtime support,
I am happy that I managed to explain
On 7/16/24 06:53, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Question: Is now everything clear - or are you still confused by my
writing?
Well, I still do not understand why backward compatibility concerns
specific to some other directive should affect the ABI for a new
directive that does not have any current li
Hi Sandra,
Sandra Loosemore wrote:
+ /* omp_initial_device is -1, omp_invalid_device is -4; choose
+ a value that isn't otherwise defined to indicate the default
+ device. */
+ device_num = build_int_cst (integer_type_node, -2);
Don't do this - we do it differently for 'targ
On 5/31/24 06:22, Tobias Burnus wrote:
I have to admit that I don't really see the use of metadirective_p as …
int
-omp_context_selector_matches (tree ctx)
+omp_context_selector_matches (tree ctx, bool metadirective_p, bool
delay_p)
...
+ if (metadirective_p && delay_p)
+
Hi Sandra,
some observations/comments, but in general it looks good.
Sandra Loosemore wrote:
This patch adds the OMP_METADIRECTIVE tree node and shared tree-level
support for manipulating metadirectives. It defines/exposes
interfaces that will be used in subsequent patches that add front-end
a
This patch adds the OMP_METADIRECTIVE tree node and shared tree-level
support for manipulating metadirectives. It defines/exposes
interfaces that will be used in subsequent patches that add front-end
and middle-end support, but nothing generates these nodes yet.
This patch also adds compile-time
