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 00139385780D; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:56:06 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 00139385780D
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/97655] gcc/fortran/openmp.c:4133: possible cut'n'paste
 error ?
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:56:06 +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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
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-97655-4-nK2nM5ORdm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-97655-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-97655-4@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: <https://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: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:56:07 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D97655

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Guess the second condition should be !c->capture.
The spec says that atomic_default_mem_order(acq_rel) makes mem-order-clause
default to acquire for read, acq_rel for capture and release otherwise - wr=
ite
or update or atomic-clause missing.
Now, something I have clearly missed in the review, why is capture not part=
 of
atomic_op?  capture is atomic-clause like the others.  And I'd be afraid we=
'd
allow something like !$omp atomic capture update or !$omp atomic update cap=
ture
by making it separate.=