Re: [PATCH v2] openmp, fortran: Add Fortran support for indirect clause on the declare target directive

[Tobias Burnus <tburnus@baylibre.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1627 bytes --]

Kwok Cheung Yeung wrote:
> As previously discussed, this version of the patch adds code to emit a 
> warning when a directive like this:
>
> !$omp declare target indirect(.true.)
>
> is encountered (i.e. a target directive containing at least one 
> clause, but no to/enter clause, which appears to violate the OpenMP 
> standard). A test is also added to 
> gfortran.dg/gomp/declare-target-indirect-1.f90 to test for this.

Thanks. And indeed, the 5.1 spec requires under "Restrictions to the 
declare target directive are as follows:" "If the directive has a 
clause, it must contain at least one 'to' clause or at least one 'link' 
clause.". [5.2 replaced 'to' by its alias 'enter' and the 6.0 preview 
added 'local' to the list.]


> I have also added a declare-target-indirect-3.f90 test to libgomp to 
> check that procedures passed via a dummy argument work properly when 
> used in an indirect call.
>
> Okay for mainline?

LGTM. I just wonder whether there should be a value test and not just a 
does-not-crash-when-called test for the latter testcase, i.e.


> +++ b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.fortran/declare-target-indirect-3.f90
> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> +! { dg-do run }
> +
> +! Check that indirect calls work on procedures passed in via a dummy argument
> +
> +module m
> +contains
> +  subroutine bar
> +    !$omp declare target enter(bar) indirect
e.g. "integer function bar()" ... " bar = 42"
> +  end subroutine
> +
> +  subroutine foo(f)
> +    procedure(bar) :: f
> +
> +    !$omp target
> +      call f
And then: if (f() /= 42) stop 1
> +    !$omp end target
> +  end subroutine
> +end module

Thanks,

Tobias