Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate

[Scott Robert Ladd]

Jacob Weismann Poulsen wrote:
> 2) As to the content of libgomp I made a few early experiments
> that wasn't meant to make its way to the official tree. The 
> reason is simply that I didn't really think about the structures
> nor the implementation and as Scott has said on several occasions
> (and I think that we all agree on this), we better base the 
> implementation on some kind of design document.

I'll have a requirements document on the list by tonight, if Florida 
doesn't erupt into total chaos over the election. ;)

We've had several design documents over the course of time. I'm looking 
at what people proposed, and I've immersed myself in the code generation 
side of GCC (hunting bugs does wonders for understanding the intricacies 
of the compiler!) I'm going to toss a preliminary document out for 
discussion early next week, and hope to have it "done" by mid-month.

> PS! As to the copyright stuff, I have finally received the signed 
> letter from FSF and not just the email confirmation that I forwarded
> to Biagio and Diego last week.

Good! The more the merrier.

--
Scott Robert Ladd
site: http://www.coyotegulch.com
blog: http://chaoticcoyote.blogspot.com