Re: more accurate omp in fortran

[Cesar Philippidis <cesar@codesourcery.com>]

On 10/30/2015 07:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:21:35AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
>> index b2894cc..93adb7b 100644
>> --- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
>> +++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
>> @@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ typedef struct gfc_omp_namelist
>>      } u;
>>    struct gfc_omp_namelist_udr *udr;
>>    struct gfc_omp_namelist *next;
>> +  locus where;
>>  }
>>  gfc_omp_namelist;
>>  
>> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/openmp.c b/gcc/fortran/openmp.c
>> index 3c12d8e..56a95d4 100644
>> --- a/gcc/fortran/openmp.c
>> +++ b/gcc/fortran/openmp.c
>> @@ -244,6 +244,7 @@ gfc_match_omp_variable_list (const char *str, gfc_omp_namelist **list,
>>  	    }
>>  	  tail->sym = sym;
>>  	  tail->expr = expr;
>> +	  tail->where = cur_loc;
>>  	  goto next_item;
>>  	case MATCH_NO:
>>  	  break;
>> @@ -278,6 +279,7 @@ gfc_match_omp_variable_list (const char *str, gfc_omp_namelist **list,
>>  	      tail = tail->next;
>>  	    }
>>  	  tail->sym = sym;
>> +	  tail->where = cur_loc;
>>  	}
>>  
>>      next_item:
> 
> The above is fine.

Thanks. I'll apply this change separately.

>> @@ -2832,36 +2834,47 @@ resolve_omp_udr_clause (gfc_omp_namelist *n, gfc_namespace *ns,
>>    return copy;
>>  }
>>  
>> -/* Returns true if clause in list 'list' is compatible with any of
>> -   of the clauses in lists [0..list-1].  E.g., a reduction variable may
>> -   appear in both reduction and private clauses, so this function
>> -   will return true in this case.  */
>> +/* Check if a variable appears in multiple clauses.  */
>>  
>> -static bool
>> -oacc_compatible_clauses (gfc_omp_clauses *clauses, int list,
>> -			   gfc_symbol *sym, bool openacc)
>> +static void
>> +resolve_omp_duplicate_list (gfc_omp_namelist *clause_list, bool openacc,
>> +			    int list)
>>  {
>>    gfc_omp_namelist *n;
>> +  const char *error_msg = "Symbol %qs present on multiple clauses at %L";
> 
> Please don't do this, I'm afraid this breaks translations.
> Also, can you explain why all the mess with OMP_LIST_REDUCTION && openacc?
> That clearly looks misplaced to me.
> If one list item may be in at most one reduction clause, but may be in
> any other clause too, then it is the same case as e.g. OpenMP
> OMP_LIST_ALIGNED case, so you should instead just:
>   && (list != OMP_LIST_REDUCTION || !openacc)
> to the for (list = 0; list < OMP_LIST_NUM; list++) loop, and handle
> OMP_LIST_REDUCTION specially, similarly how OMP_LIST_ALIGNED is handled,
> just guarded with if (openacc).

That's a good idea, thanks. Reduction variables may appear in multiple
clauses in openacc because you have have reductions on kernels and
parallel constructs. And the same reduction variable may be associated
with a data clause.

Cesar