Re: [gomp4] SIMD clauses patch committed

[Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>]

On 06/28/13 09:01, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The patch grew already too large, while doing something clever to avoid
> unnecessary memory loads/stores in vectorized loop is still unimplemented,
> the rest is and it seems to work now (at least on the added testcases),
> so I've committed it to gomp-4_0-branch now.
>
> If anyone has any issues with this approach, please let me know.

I'm cool with it.  Thanks for working on this.

I merged my aldyh/cilk-in-gomp branch with your current gomp-4_0-branch, 
and everything's peachy.  I also noticed you merged with trunk, so now 
we're all squared with Balaji's array notation work.  There was some 
small fallout, but I've fixed it all.

At this point, I wonder if it would be reasonable to merge my branch 
into gomp-4_0-branch, or if you'd rather keep it separate.

Also, are we at a point where we could perhaps merge Cilk Plus' <#pragma 
simd> into trunk (albeit, bringing in the corresponding machinery from 
gomp-4_0-branch first)?  The Cilk Plus work is incremental, so it's 
understandable to bring this in piecemeal (array notation, then pragma 
simd, then elemental functions, etc etc).

What are your thoughts?