On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 01:20:52PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi Jakub!
>
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:36:39 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 07:00:09PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > > The point is that we now have lots of clauses, and making it clear what
> > > > f
Hi Jakub!
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:36:39 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 07:00:09PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > The point is that we now have lots of clauses, and making it clear what
> > > from
> > > those clauses are Cilk+, what are OpenACC, what are OpenMP will hel
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 07:00:09PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > The point is that we now have lots of clauses, and making it clear what from
> > those clauses are Cilk+, what are OpenACC, what are OpenMP will help with
> > code readability.
So here is what I'd like to see with PRAGMA_O*_CLAUS
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 07:00:09PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> OK, so there is this limit. But, I fail to understand how merely moving
> the OpenACC-only PRAGMA_*_CLAUSE_* to the end of enum pragma_omp_clause
> will help overcome that? Or have I now completely confused myself, and
> I'm not e
Hi Jakub!
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:29:42 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 02:48:32PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > Like for CILK, I'd strongly prefer if for the clauses that are
> > > specific to OpenACC only you'd use PRAGMA_OACC_CLAUSE_* instead,
> > > and put them afte
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 02:48:32PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > Like for CILK, I'd strongly prefer if for the clauses that are
> > specific to OpenACC only you'd use PRAGMA_OACC_CLAUSE_* instead,
> > and put them after the PRAGMA_CILK_* enum values.
> > If you want to have PRAGMA_OACC_CLAUSE_
