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 CEA67385B51C; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:18:58 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CEA67385B51C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1676024338;
	bh=gkkoULmhteJS2oNQOJnkh0j53TPJBdZJLRxdEjHbG5s=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=tQ+GUBPnNbkuA+cKCYCyiysPuGsLM3YdsX5daN/LTNkYLop02b0jL8DkUSl/3QmGv
	 4oNHYEsuqOYyvv8hswSHLY5Zi2pWiIwEhrHjflS0OXnrV2lXBr44bEoPwpltmRokjt
	 A7BtOlJRcvcttVH+EzoWAmrACX/g5j/Ckaz5abHU=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug other/108749] [OpenMP][C/C++/Fortran] inscan reduction modifier
 rejected for combined/composite constructs of simd/for/do
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:18:58 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: other
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: openmp, rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-108749-4-KQ6iVaYer4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108749-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108749-4@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=3D108749

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We implement the 5.0 wording which was quite clear that only the selected
combined/composite constructs are allowed for it.  The clause handling word=
ing
was added without considering the former (it wasn't initially there I belie=
ve).

Next step would be implement the 5.2 wording, which would be support those =
also
on
   #pragma omp masked taskloop simd
   #pragma omp master taskloop simd
   #pragma omp parallel masked taskloop simd
   #pragma omp parallel master taskloop simd
   #pragma omp target parallel for
   #pragma omp target parallel for simd
   #pragma omp target simd
   #pragma omp taskloop simd
I guess we could even do it for GCC 13, it is a simple change.=