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 7A3083AAA0BD; Thu,  6 May 2021 16:23:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7A3083AAA0BD
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/99928] [OpenMP] reduction variable in combined
 target construct wrongly mapped as firstprivate
Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 16:23:26 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: openmp, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus 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-99928-4-4XYCJptZ8V@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99928-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99928-4@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, 06 May 2021 16:23:26 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99928

--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I think we should start by checking what we are missing from the handling=
 of
> the harder clauses on combined/composite constructs against the 5.0 2.14
> section. [...]  in_reduction.

BTW: we already miss parser support for 'omp target in_reduction' - even
without combined constructs ...=