[PING] RE: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++

["Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>]

Hi Jakub,
	Did you get a chance to look at this patch?

Thanks,

Balaji V. Iyer.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 5:07 PM
> To: Jakub Jelinek
> Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
> 'rth@redhat.com'
> Subject: RE: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
> 
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:jakub@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 12:58 PM
> > To: Iyer, Balaji V
> > Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez';
> > 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'; 'rth@redhat.com'
> > Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:14:21PM +0000, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > > 	Attached, please find a fixed patch. Along with it, I have also
> > > added
> > > 2 changelog files for C and C++ respectively.
> >
> > Have you even looked at the second testcase I've posted?
> > gimplification ICEs on it with your latest patch, because firstprivate
> > clause is added for the same variable multiple times, and it seems
> > parallel still isn't around _Cilk_for.
> 
> I looked at both but forgot to test them with my implementation. Sorry
> about this. I have fixed the ICE issue. To make sure this does not happen
> further, I have added your test cf3.C into test suite (renamed to cf3.cc). I
> hope that is OK with you.
> 
> I have attached a fixed patch and Changelogs. Is this OK?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Balaji V. Iyer.
> 
> >
> > 	Jakub