RE: [Gomp-discuss] Pragma idea...

[Scott Robert Ladd]

Steven Bosscher wrote:
> I don't like the idea, because this actually involves more changes to
> GCC than just fitting the omp pragmas to GCC's current pragma system.
> It's possible to do it, even with the current yacc C front end.  The
> changes to the front end are probably <100 lines, the rest is in new
> files.

How, then, are we going to implement OpenMP for Fortran 95? Fortran uses
specially-formatted comments -- not pragmas -- to implement OpenMP
directives. I don't know the architecture of g95; perhaps it can use the C
code for pragmas.

> Bypassing the GCC pragma system would mean you'd have to hack cpplib,
> and you'd have to hack it real bad.  In addition to that, having two
> separate pragma mechanisms is only more likely a reason for the GCC
> community to reject such work.

And mucking with the current pragnma code may also be a reason for rejection
by the gcc community. We've already seen concerns raised that OpenMP's
pragmas conflict with the assumptions made about "normal" pragmas by the C
compiler.

> It may not be easy, but it can be done with the current GCC, and the
> good news is that it will only be easier when the new C parser arrives.

Again, this ignores the Fortran implementation. I would like to see one code
base handle as much of OpenMP as possible across both g95 and gcc.

..Scott