Hi!

On 2019-10-18T14:28:18+0200, I wrote:
> On 2019-10-06T15:32:34-0700, Julian Brown <julian@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> This patch adds a function to pretty-print OpenACC clause names from
>> OMP_CLAUSE_MAP_KINDs, for error output.
>
> Indeed talking about (OpenMP) 'map' clauses in an OpenACC context is not
> quite ideal -- that's what PR65095 is about

>> Previously approved as part of:
>>
>>   https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg01292.html


> A few more comments, for later:
>
>>  gcc/c-family/c-common.h |  1 +
>>  gcc/c-family/c-omp.c    | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> As I'd mentioned before: 'Eventually (that is, later), this should move
> into generic code, next to the other "clause printing".

As part of an ICE bug fix that I'm working on, I now need to use
this in GCC middle end code.  Once tested, OK to push the attached
"Add 'gcc/tree.cc:user_omp_clause_code_name' [PR65095]"?


Grüße
 Thomas


> Also to be
> shared with Fortran.'
>
>> --- a/gcc/c-family/c-omp.c
>> +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-omp.c
>
>> +/* For OpenACC, the OMP_CLAUSE_MAP_KIND of an OMP_CLAUSE_MAP is used internally
>> +   to distinguish clauses as seen by the user.  Return the "friendly" clause
>> +   name for error messages etc., where possible.  See also
>> +   c/c-parser.c:c_parser_oacc_data_clause and
>> +   cp/parser.c:cp_parser_oacc_data_clause.  */
>> +
>> +const char *
>> +c_omp_map_clause_name (tree clause, bool oacc)
>> +{
>> +  if (oacc && OMP_CLAUSE_CODE (clause) == OMP_CLAUSE_MAP)
>> +    switch (OMP_CLAUSE_MAP_KIND (clause))
>> +    {
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_FORCE_ALLOC:
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_ALLOC: return "create";
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_FORCE_TO:
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_TO: return "copyin";
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_FORCE_FROM:
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_FROM: return "copyout";
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_FORCE_TOFROM:
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_TOFROM: return "copy";
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_RELEASE: return "delete";
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_FORCE_PRESENT: return "present";
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_ATTACH: return "attach";
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_FORCE_DETACH:
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_DETACH: return "detach";
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_DEVICE_RESIDENT: return "device_resident";
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_LINK: return "link";
>> +    case GOMP_MAP_FORCE_DEVICEPTR: return "deviceptr";
>> +    default: break;
>> +    }
>> +  return omp_clause_code_name[OMP_CLAUSE_CODE (clause)];
>> +}
>
> Indeed nearby (after) the 'omp_clause_code_name' definition in
> 'gcc/tree.c' would probably be a better place for this, as that's where
> the current clause names are coming from.
>
> I did wonder whether we need to explicitly translate from (OpenMP) "'map'
> clause" into (OpenACC) "'create' clause" etc., or if a generic (OpenACC)
> "data clause" would be sufficient?  (After all, in diagnostics we also
> print out the original code, so the user can then see which specific data
> clause is being complained about.  But -- somewhat funnily! -- the way
> you're doing this might actually be better in terms of translatability in
> diagnostics printing: "%qs clause" might require a different translation
> when its "%s" can be "'map'" (doesn't get translated) vs. "data" (gets
> translated), but remains the same when "%s" is "'map'" vs. "'create'"
> etc.
>
> Do we at all still generate 'GOMP_MAP_FORCE_*' anywhere, or should these
> in fact be 'gcc_unreachable'?
>
> Generally, I prefer if all possible 'case's are listed explicitly, and
> then the 'default' (and here OpenMP-only ones, too) be 'gcc_unreachable',
> so that we easily catch the case that new 'GOMP_MAP_*' get added but such
> functions not updated, for example.
>
>
> Grüße
>  Thomas


-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955