On 10/30/2015 10:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:42:39AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:

>>> Another thing is what Jason as C++ maintainer wants, it is nice to get rid
>>> of some code redundancies, on the other side the fact that there is one
>>> function per non-terminal in the grammar is also quite nice property.
>>> I know I've violated this a few times too.
> 
>> That name had some legacy from the c FE in gomp-4_0-branch which the
>> function was inherited from. On one hand, it doesn't make sense to allow
>> negative integer values for those clauses, but at the same time, those
>> values aren't checked during scanning. Maybe it should be renamed
>> cp_parser_oacc_single_int_clause instead?
> 
> That is better.
> 
>> If you like, I could make a more general
>> cp_parser_omp_generic_expression that has a scan_list argument so that
>> it can be used for both general expressions and assignment-expressions.
>> That way it can be used for both omp and oacc clauses of the form 'foo (
>> expression )'.
> 
> No, that will only confuse readers of the parser.  After all, the code to
> parse an expression argument of a clause is not that large.
> So, either cp_parser_oacc_single_int_clause or just keeping the old separate
> parsing functions, just remove the cruft from those (testing the type,
> using cp_parser_condition instead of cp_parser_assignment_expression) is ok
> with me.  Please ping Jason on what he prefers from those two.

Jason, what's your preference here? Should I create a single function to
parser num_gangs, num_workers and vector_length since they all accept
the same type of argument or should I just correct the existing
functions as I did in the attached patch? Either one would be specific
to openacc.

This patch has been bootstrapped and regression tested on trunk.

Cesar