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 5261D395A800; Wed, 13 May 2020 16:58:44 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5261D395A800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1589389124;
 bh=TgNPFnmPCEY5KCTpAkF6fW8vcVT5WVfuQuon+5auCag=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=akYBRe2q9VL1WPoXEe89YhqNbna/72Tbry3XPNS3StbxuIQEsFuD/21Ci4E7D2Fx1
 FALC7qfVeoSkZMRCcMcHXlKbBwCr2WkY87RYYYUFXYBR9km7/gIfMRq/R9jcTVVUUb
 E2yEZRne7YUR5MKj6nK0g/bjPIQ6VAOEPc9WIsg8=
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?W0J1ZyBmb3J0cmFuLzk0NjkwXSBbT3Blbk1QXSBvbXAgLi4uIGRp?=
 =?UTF-8?B?c3RyaWJ1dGUg4oCTIGxhc3Rwcml2YXRlIG5vdCBwZXJtaXR0ZWQgYW5kIG1v?=
 =?UTF-8?B?cmUgaXNzdWVz?=
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 16:58:44 +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: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: openmp, rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-94690-4-djyMVVBL8m@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94690-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94690-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 16:58:44 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94690

--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 48522
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D48522&action=3Dedit
Patch to add OpenMP 5 feature (private + lastprivate permitted for 'simd')

The patch solves an independent issue, required for the test case below
(namely, the "private(j)").

The *committed* patch causes gfortran.dg/gomp/target1.f90 to FAIL.

The problem shows up with the following test case (reduced but modified):
-------------
  subroutine foo ()
    integer :: s, i, j
    !$omp target teams
    !$omp distribute parallel do default(shared) &
    !$omp collapse (2) private(j) lastprivate (s)
      do i =3D 1, 10
        do j =3D 1, 10
          s =3D i * 10 + j
        end do
      end do
    !$omp end target teams
  end subroutine
-------------

The problem is that this currently produces (-fdump-tree-original):
  #pragma omp teams private(i) private(j)

Which later causes problems as it doesn't add a  (last)private(i) when it
should=20

(Search for "if (outer && lastprivate)" in gimplify_omp_for =E2=80=93 and l=
ook through
the lines below. As "i" is present, omp_check_private() returns true and a
required omp_add_variable is not called. =E2=80=93 Leading later to the ICE=
.)

That's solved by:

--- a/gcc/fortran/openmp.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/openmp.c
@@ -5688,3 +5688,3 @@ gfc_resolve_do_iterator (gfc_code *code, gfc_symbol *=
sym,
bool add_clause)
       gfc_code *omp_code =3D omp_current_ctx->code->block;
-      for ( ; omp_code->next; omp_code =3D omp_code->next)
+      for ( ; omp_code; omp_code =3D omp_code->next)
        switch (omp_code->op)

However, that leads to the odd result that:

  !$omp target teams
    !$omp distribute parallel do default(shared) &  ! "do"
    !$omp collapse (2) private(j) lastprivate (s)
    ...
    !$omp distribute parallel do simd default(shared) & ! "do simd" (!)
    !$omp collapse (2) private(j) lastprivate (s)
    ...

has "#pragma omp teams" [w/o private(i) private(j)]

While removing the "simd" from the code above leads to no "private(i)
private(j)", which does not make sense.

The code (openmp.c's gfc_do_resolve_do_iterator) is supposed to do:
  /* !$omp do and !$omp parallel do iteration variable is predetermined
     private just in the !$omp do resp. !$omp parallel do construct,
     with no implications for the outer parallel constructs.  */

But here it adds it to 'teams', which looks wrong/inconsistent.=