public inbox for fortran@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tobias Burnus <tobias@codesourcery.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Mikael Morin <morin-mikael@orange.fr>
Cc: <gscfq@t-online.de>, Kwok Cheung Yeung <kcy@codesourcery.com>,
	gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	fortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] openmp, fortran: Check that event handles passed to detach clauses are not arrays [PR104131]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 08:58:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <65456330-dc81-0647-3bdb-6d409554136d@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yh1AqBhbW6ZeItm2@tucnak>

On 28.02.22 22:37, Jakub Jelinek via Fortran wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:45:10PM +0100, Mikael Morin wrote:
>> Lesson learned today: expressions don’t have a corank.
>> Does pr104131-2.f90 really need to be rejected?

In my reading of the spec, pr104131-2.f90 is _valid_ (in newer OMP). At
least that's implied by the spec as quoted by Jakub:

> OpenMP 5.2 says that detach clause should be treated as if it appears on a
> firstprivate clause and for the privatization clauses says:
> "A private variable must not be coindexed or appear as an actual argument to a procedure where
> the corresponding dummy argument is a coarray."
> 5.1 had the same restriction.

+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/pr104131-2.f90
...
+  integer (kind=omp_event_handle_kind) :: x[*]
+  !$omp task detach (x)

Here, 'x' is a coarray – but refers to the local variable on this image.

But the following is invalid as it is coindexed:
   !$omp task detach (x[3])

where x[3] means that the value from 'x' on image 3 should be used.

The wording actually also permits array sections. But contrary to coarrays,
(which are odd but otherwise fine), I think it does not really make sense
to have arrays and array sections here.

(Do we need/want to get this clarified/changed in spec?)

But from the wording of the spec, also the first testcase seems to be valid.

  * * *


>> A variable that is part of another variable (as an array element or a
>> structure element) cannot appear in a detach clause.
> which tells that the check should be on expr->ref instead of
> expr->sym->as or expr->rank.

I think looking at the "sym" is fine when matching the expression
via  gfc_match_omp_variable_list with allow_derived=false (default).
As then there cannot be derived-type components.

Additionally, expr->rank > 0 rules out arrays/array sections
but permits array elements while sym->addr.dimension also rules
out array elements.

BTW: after resolving a variable, expr->ref always exists
for arrays – either to select an element or array section
or otherwise, there is an AR_FULL for a whole array.

Tobias

-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-03-01  7:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-28 14:01 Kwok Cheung Yeung
2022-02-28 14:07 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-02-28 14:27   ` Kwok Cheung Yeung
2022-02-28 15:54     ` Mikael Morin
2022-02-28 16:00       ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-02-28 17:33         ` Mikael Morin
2022-02-28 17:37           ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-02-28 18:38             ` Kwok Cheung Yeung
2022-02-28 20:37               ` Mikael Morin
2022-02-28 20:45                 ` Mikael Morin
2022-02-28 21:37                   ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-02-28 22:36                     ` Mikael Morin
2022-03-01  7:58                     ` Tobias Burnus [this message]
2022-03-01  8:16                       ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-03-01  9:17                         ` Tobias Burnus
2022-03-01 15:37                           ` Mikael Morin
2022-03-02 17:22                             ` [PATCH][v2] openmp, fortran: Check that the type of an event handle in a detach clause is suitable [PR104131] Kwok Cheung Yeung
2022-03-02 17:31                               ` Jakub Jelinek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=65456330-dc81-0647-3bdb-6d409554136d@codesourcery.com \
    --to=tobias@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=fortran@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gscfq@t-online.de \
    --cc=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=kcy@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=morin-mikael@orange.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).