On 11/10/2015 12:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 09:28:47PM -0800, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> Here's the patch that Nathan was referring to. I ended up introducing a
>> boolean variable named first in the various functions which call
>> finalize_oacc_routines. The problem the original approach was having was
>> that the routine clauses is only applied to the first function
>> declarator in a declaration list. By using 'first', which is set to true
>> if the current declarator is the first in a sequence of declarators, I
>> was able to defer setting parser->oacc_routine to NULL.
> 
> The #pragma omp declare simd has identical restrictions, but doesn't need
> to add any of the first parameters to the C++ parser.
> So, what are you doing differently that you need it?  Handling both
> differently is a consistency issue, and unnecessary additional complexity to
> the parser.

I reworked how acc routines are handed in this patch to be more similar
to #pragma omp declare simd. Things get kind of messy though. For
starters, I had to add a new tree clauses member to
cp_omp_declare_simd_data. This serves two purposes:

  * It allows the c++ FE to record the location of the first
    #pragma acc routine, which is nice because it allows test cases to
    be shared with the c FE.

  * Unlike omp declare simd, only one acc routine may be associated with
    a function decl. This meant that I had to defer attaching the acc
    geometry and 'omp target' attributes to cp_finalize_oacc_routine
    instead of in cp_parser_late_parsing_oacc_routine like in omp. So
    what happens is, cp_parser_late_parsing_oacc_routine ends up
    creating a function geometry clause.

I don't really like this approach. I did try to postpone parsing the
clauses till cp_finalize_oacc_routine, but that got messy. Plus, while
I'd be able to remove the clauses field from cp_omp_declare_simd_data,
we'd still need a location_t field for cp_ensure_no_oacc_routine.

Is this OK for trunk?

Cesar