On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 03:00:16PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Jakub, for avoidance of doubt, the proposed refactoring makes sense to
> me, but does need your approval:
This is ok for trunk.
Jakub
Hi!
Jakub, for avoidance of doubt, the proposed refactoring makes sense to
me, but does need your approval:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 16:30:40 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang
wrote:
> Ping x2.
>
> On 15/5/11 7:19 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> > Ping.
> >
> > On 2015/4/21 08:21 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> >> Hi
Ping x2.
On 15/5/11 7:19 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On 2015/4/21 08:21 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> Hi,
>> while investigating some issues in the variable mapping code, I observed
>> that the GOMP_MAP_POINTER handling is essentially duplicated under the PSET
>> case.
>> This patch abs
Ping.
On 2015/4/21 08:21 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Hi,
> while investigating some issues in the variable mapping code, I observed
> that the GOMP_MAP_POINTER handling is essentially duplicated under the PSET
> case.
> This patch abstracts and unifies the handling code, basically just a cleanup
Hi,
while investigating some issues in the variable mapping code, I observed
that the GOMP_MAP_POINTER handling is essentially duplicated under the PSET
case.
This patch abstracts and unifies the handling code, basically just a cleanup
patch. Ran libgomp tests to ensure no regressions, ok for trun
