From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 019EE3858D28; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 11:11:23 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 019EE3858D28 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1676027484; bh=KA6plfxjqg8ffJcLCpQ7SzOtqRewigHJfDHoGdeQHmI=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=S9l43ESQ6eA1BHai0KBVu1OPs1ZYHQbdmoogVwqMbyrlxnDpIFsXy1hH2yKFTDI07 tTUb3eVqzBhxCzLby5aV1spgLv9vRQYYYxzwc93MrqSLCFAwaMyVrXpz8RC3VmBal5 nNle5jGx2ow6gRf3vPc4AEvxoiCw51is1O8wDyRA= From: "jakub at gcc dot 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 11:11:23 +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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108749 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Perhaps it is implementable also for taskloop, but with a lot of work. The way how e.g. for/do works with inscan is that the two parts of the loop= are split up, and one essentially gets two worksharing loops with the same numb= er of iterations, one doing one part, then some single (or in parallel) middle-part and then another doing the other part. With tasks, perhaps we could create separate tasks for the two halves, spaw= n a taskloop that does one part, then a task that depends on all those tasks and does the merging in the middle and finally another taskloop that does the o= ther part. But I think this is something that hasn't been even considered when just tweaking the wording. After all, if we want to allow inscan on taskloop si= md and constructs combined with that, we'd first want to allow it on taskloop itself.=