Re: OpenACC wait clause

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:22:01PM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> +      while (ret == MATCH_YES)
>  	{
> -	  if (cp->gang_static)
> -	    return MATCH_ERROR;
> +	  if (gfc_match (" static :") == MATCH_YES)
> +	    {
> +	      if (cp->gang_static)
> +		return MATCH_ERROR;

It might be useful to gfc_error before this (i.e. follow a rule,
if you return MATCH_ERROR where MATCH_ERROR has not been returned before,
you emit gfc_error, if it has been returned from nested calls, you don't),
but it is not a big deal, worse case you get the cryptic generic error.
Let's keep it as is for now.

> +      /* The 'num' arugment is optional.  */

Typo, argument.

> +      if (gfc_match (" num :") == MATCH_ERROR)
> +	return MATCH_ERROR;

This is unnecessary (I mean the == MATCH_ERROR check), gfc_match for
no % operands in it will never return MATCH_ERROR (why would it?),
just MATCH_YES or MATCH_NO.

> +  else if (gwv == GOMP_DIM_VECTOR)
> +    {
> +      /* The 'length' arugment is optional.  */

See above.

> +      if (gfc_match (" length :") == MATCH_ERROR)

And once more.

> @@ -1275,8 +1308,8 @@ gfc_match_omp_clauses (gfc_omp_clauses **cp, uint64_t mask,
>  	    continue;
>  	  if ((mask & OMP_CLAUSE_TILE)
>  	      && !c->tile_list
> -	      && match_oacc_expr_list ("tile (", &c->tile_list,
> -				       true) == MATCH_YES)
> +	      && match_oacc_expr_list ("tile (", &c->tile_list, true)
> +	         == MATCH_YES)

Why this hunk?  I think it is better to put the line break before the last
argument here, you don't have to decide if it shouldn't be surrounded by
	      && (match_oacc... (...)
		  == MATCH_YES))

Otherwise LGTM.

	Jakub