From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20893858D1E for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:04:59 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org E20893858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1664535899; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=rJawQZORoqGMmrWITtlXYrsKZm1CijoBaHedaL1MUKg=; b=ZrOONvY/QG7SoeENG7zYUBlRMoBjBLzABnOf0my0ULL4Ly0bNni9gsGTHyhAHyhKsksbor +PXuPv1ffdICbTD0cDKsVJY413zpTGeJE2v/e+JAno2bg9Eu0H4MpCDlfjzDUITqcIXJKz AzysiNJv2fSnuv85T9/oduLuTJlFAM4= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-609-ToEkN9fhPT2EsNiTQw0eaw-1; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 07:04:57 -0400 X-MC-Unique: ToEkN9fhPT2EsNiTQw0eaw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19B4D8041B5; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:04:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.194]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5F21121319; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:04:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 28UB4sY63857815 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 30 Sep 2022 13:04:54 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 28UB4r3S3857814; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 13:04:53 +0200 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 13:04:53 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Tobias Burnus Cc: gcc-patches , fortran Subject: Re: [Patch] Fortran: Update use_device_ptr for OpenMP 5.1 [PR105318] Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <6005cea4-c89e-0c31-1c61-d322dcf072e7@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6005cea4-c89e-0c31-1c61-d322dcf072e7@codesourcery.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 12:41:19PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > While has_device_addr has been implemented (in GCC 12), updating > use_device_ptr for Fortran was missed. > > This patch fixes it: Removing the restrictions and mapping to > has_device_addr where applicable. > > For use_device_ptr something similar was done, albeit I think > this has no semantic effect. > > And 'device(omp_initial_device)' printed a warning in Fortran. > (BTW: C/C++ silently accepts any negative value.) I think that is what the standard wants. E.g. in 5.2 device Clause chapter, there is just "If the device_num device-modifier is specified and target-offload-var is not mandatory, device-description must evaluate to a conforming device number." restriction, which is something that can't be checked at compile time, you don't know if target-offload-var is mandatory or not. > if (omp_clauses->device) > - resolve_nonnegative_int_expr (omp_clauses->device, "DEVICE"); > + { > + resolve_scalar_int_expr (omp_clauses->device, "DEVICE"); > + /* omp_initial_device == 1, omp_invalid_device = -4 (in GCC). */ > + if (omp_clauses->device->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT > + && omp_clauses->device->ts.type == BT_INTEGER > + && mpz_cmp_si (omp_clauses->device->value.integer, -1) < 0 > + && mpz_cmp_si (omp_clauses->device->value.integer, -4) != 0) > + gfc_warning (0, > + "INTEGER expression of DEVICE clause at %L must be non-" > + "negative or omp_initial_device or omp_invalid_device", > + &omp_clauses->device->where); > + } So I think we should just resolve_scalar_int_expr and be done with that. Otherwise LGTM. Jakub