From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 6E34B3858D3C; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:46:53 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6E34B3858D3C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1674740813;
	bh=TSjSEGyxynwOl3M9Jz14dfgGHIkdRSrUb+P79UUvXYo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=uvrcZscjEoYt9rQT0jbkG58OtsbGGIbe5vdq0l5CtzBoXsikqB5irZrW7ixaJEs49
	 VycWUKhCY3f0G9t5mvhYocrNvj99if/FpDnMZCe6obtH9DaHWH8P7AOJTkLVnE+IeY
	 yDDS9IpcP/xn88yBYn80i0Lh3x0CZTF/rB0FWToE=
From: "tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/108558] OpenMP/Fortran 'has_device_addr' clause getting
 lost?
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:46:53 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: openmp
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108558-4-bHiMB2o0HY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108558-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108558-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108558

--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> I bet that this is a problem of 'gfc_split_omp_clauses': [...]

Heh, so indeed as I suspected:

(In reply to myself from comment #0)
> (Decomposed combined construct.  Is that perhaps where the problem lies?)

:-)

With your patch (thanks!) applied, I do get what I suspect are the expected
changes:

'pr.f90.005t.original':

    -  #pragma omp target
    +  #pragma omp target has_device_addr(a) has_device_addr(b)

'pr.f90.006t.gimple':

    -  #pragma omp target num_teams(0) thread_limit(0) firstprivate(m)
map(tofrom:*b [len: D.4283][implicit]) map(alloc:b [pointer assign, bias: 0=
])
map(tofrom:*a [len: D.4280][implicit]) map(alloc:a [pointer assign, bias: 0=
])
    +  #pragma omp target num_teams(0) thread_limit(0) has_device_addr(a)
has_device_addr(b) firstprivate(D.4283) firstprivate(D.4280) firstprivate(m)

..., and my original test case behaves as expected; OpenMP/Fortran
'has_device_addr' works.=