From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E705383801E for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 20:15:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 9E705383801E Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-485-wLtVHjjCPAu1bAHGDDYtfQ-1; Thu, 27 May 2021 16:15:41 -0400 X-MC-Unique: wLtVHjjCPAu1bAHGDDYtfQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B23E107ACE3; Thu, 27 May 2021 20:15:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-112-147.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.147]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ABF4503E5; Thu, 27 May 2021 20:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 14RKFaQL648999 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 May 2021 22:15:36 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 14RKFZ6q648998; Thu, 27 May 2021 22:15:35 +0200 Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 22:15:35 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Joseph Myers Cc: Tobias Burnus , gcc-patches , fortran Subject: Re: [Patch] OpenMP: Add iterator support to Fortran's depend; add affinity clause Message-ID: <20210527201535.GS7746@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <923778bf-f61e-7bd0-7926-53d28434fdab@codesourcery.com> <20210428134143.GP1179226@tucnak> <3bfa68db-f904-a1cb-0d18-c1a17ecfc720@codesourcery.com> <20210527082259.GM7746@tucnak> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: fortran@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Fortran mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 20:15:44 -0000 On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 07:58:03PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2021, Tobias Burnus wrote: > > > @Joseph: I CC'ed you in case you have comments regarding > > c-parser.c's c_parser_check_balanced_raw_token_sequence (comment update) > > and c_parser_check_tight_balanced_raw_token_sequence (new); the latter > > is essentially cp_parser_skip_balanced_tokens with slight adaptions. > > I don't understand why the name says either "tight" or "balanced". As far > as I can see, c_parser_check_tight_balanced_raw_token_sequence isn't > checking for balanced token sequences (in the sense defined in C2x) at all > and would accept e.g. }]{[ as being balanced. Is that really what's > supposed to be accepted there? If it is, the comment on the function > definition needs to explain the exact definition of what token sequences > are accepted. Not }]{[ but {[}], true. I guess what Tobias posted comes from the C++ FE cp_parser_skip_balanced_tokens which is apparently my fault. The C++ grammar is: balanced-token-seq: balanced-token balanced-token-seq balanced-token balanced-token: ( balanced-token-seq opt ) [ balanced-token-seq opt ] { balanced-token-seq opt } any token other than a parenthesis, a bracket, or a brace so I bet we need something like the C c_parser_check_balanced_raw_token_sequence instead in the C++ FE too. For the particular OpenMP use case, I think it really doesn't matter which one we use, if the opening and closing parens kinds/counts would match but they wouldn't be balanced, it would be invalid in any case and we'd reported it during parsing of the iterators. Jakub