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 33DCB386F42F; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 10:59:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 33DCB386F42F
From: "tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/98011] New: [OpenACC] 'gcc/fortran/scanner.c:load_line'
 should consider 'flag_openacc' in addition to 'flag_openmp' (and vice
 versa?)?
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 10:59:55 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: openacc
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tschwinge 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: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status
 keywords bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter cc
 target_milestone
Message-ID: <bug-98011-4@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: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 10:59:56 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98011

            Bug ID: 98011
           Summary: [OpenACC] 'gcc/fortran/scanner.c:load_line' should
                    consider 'flag_openacc' in addition to 'flag_openmp'
                    (and vice versa?)?
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: openacc
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
                CC: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

It's not obvious (to me, at least), why in 'gcc/fortran/scanner.c:load_line'
'flag_openmp' and 'flag_openacc' are handled differently:

    /* For truncation and tab warnings, set seen_comment to false if one has
       either an OpenMP or OpenACC directive - or a !GCC$ attribute.  If
       OpenMP is enabled, use '!$' as as conditional compilation sentinel
       and OpenMP directive ('!$omp').  */
    if (seen_comment && first_comment && flag_openmp && comment_ix + 1 =3D=
=3D i
        && c =3D=3D '$')
      first_comment =3D seen_comment =3D false;
    if (seen_comment && first_comment && comment_ix + 4 =3D=3D i)
      {
        if (((*pbuf)[comment_ix+1] =3D=3D 'g' || (*pbuf)[comment_ix+1] =3D=
=3D 'G')
            && ((*pbuf)[comment_ix+2] =3D=3D 'c' || (*pbuf)[comment_ix+2] =
=3D=3D 'C')
            && ((*pbuf)[comment_ix+3] =3D=3D 'c' || (*pbuf)[comment_ix+3] =
=3D=3D 'C')
            && c =3D=3D '$')
          first_comment =3D seen_comment =3D false;
        if (flag_openacc
            && (*pbuf)[comment_ix+1] =3D=3D '$'
            && ((*pbuf)[comment_ix+2] =3D=3D 'a' || (*pbuf)[comment_ix+2] =
=3D=3D 'A')
            && ((*pbuf)[comment_ix+3] =3D=3D 'c' || (*pbuf)[comment_ix+3] =
=3D=3D 'C')
            && (c =3D=3D 'c' || c =3D=3D 'C'))
          first_comment =3D seen_comment =3D false;
      }

Shouldn't this also be handled vice versa?

If that indeed is meant to be different, then let's please add some "dummy
handling"/commentary to make this explicit, to show that we did consider th=
is.=