An OpenMP End Statement becomes optional if the opening statement
of an OpenMP construct is followed by a block-construct. An example
is given in the second program ...
Does this new feature invalidate my code (the first program below),
or the block I wrote isn't strictly structured, or what I miss here?
Silence! Possibly, I've missed some details but I hope to eventually get
the point, which shall normally be genius. On the hand, if older code is indeed invalidated, the chances are that such cases would be rare.
If an optional OpenMP END closes your block, then the actual
END statement that you supply would be an error...
In the case of nested blocks, there is an ambiguity with the
optional END. If you put just one, it could be the real one following
the omitted optional, or the actual optional one.
|Location:||Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK|
|Nodes:||16 (0 / 16)|