Re: [patch] initial OpenCL C language support

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> > Just to clarify a bit what I was trying to say: Most of the comments are
> > mostly cosmetic, and I don't think we need to verify that you followed
> > the comments correctly. If this was the only comments I had, I would be
> > comfortable with pre-approving the patch, particularly since Tom already
> > looked at it as well.  But before the patch goes in, I'd like to understand
> > what the reason for the changes in c-exp.y...
> 
> The reason for looking up the primitive types instead of referring to
> the builtins is that the builtin types may have a wrong type size. The
> OpenCL type long for example is expected to have a size of 8 byte
> while the size of the GDB builtin long is dependant on the current
> architecture and might be only 4 bytes.

But you have the gdbarch vector when building the OpenCL long, right?
(see opencl_language_arch_info). For instance, in Ada, we don't know
the size of type "Integer", so we ask the gdbarch what is the size of
int.

  lai->primitive_type_vector [ada_primitive_type_int]
    = arch_integer_type (gdbarch, gdbarch_int_bit (gdbarch),
                         0, "integer");

That way, we can use the builtin types directly.  Would that work in
your case?

> +  /* Triple vectors have the size of a quad vector. */
                                                    ^^^ missing second space
> +/* Returns non-zero if the array ARR contains duplicates within
> +     the first N elements.  */

non-zero should be spelled nonzero. I have known that for quite a while
because a friend of mine is really good at spelling, but never really
thought much until I saw this being explicitly mentioned in the GCC
Coding Conventions. Let's try to fix them one at a time...

> +  for (i = offset; i < n; i++)
> +    {
> +      memcpy (value_contents_raw (v) + j++ * elsize,
> +	      value_contents (c->val) + c->indices[i] * elsize,
> +	      elsize);
> +    }

The curly braces are unnecessary in this case.

> +  for (i = start; i < end; i++)
> +    {
> +      int startoffset = (i == start) ? startrest : 0;
> +      int length = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
> +      if (!value_bits_valid (c->val, c->indices[i] * elsize + startoffset,
> +			     length))

Missing empty line after variable declarations...

> +  for (i = 0; i < c->n; i++)
> +    {
> +      if (value_bits_valid (c->val, c->indices[i] * elsize, elsize))
> +	return 1;
> +    }

Unecessary curly braces...

> +	      for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
> +		{
> +		  /* Copy src val contents into the destination value.  */
> +		  memcpy (value_contents_writeable (ret)
> +			  + (i * TYPE_LENGTH (elm_type)),
> +			  value_contents (val)
> +			  + (indices[i] * TYPE_LENGTH (elm_type)),
> +			  TYPE_LENGTH (elm_type));
> +		}

Likewise.

> +/* Perform a relational operation on two operands.  */
> +static struct value *
> +opencl_relop (struct expression *exp, struct value *arg1, struct value *arg2,
> +	      enum exp_opcode op)

Missing empty line after the function description.

> +  if (!t1_is_vec && !t2_is_vec)
> +    {
> +      int tmp = scalar_relop (arg1, arg2, op);
> +      struct type *type =
> +	language_bool_type (exp->language_defn, exp->gdbarch);
> +      val = value_from_longest (type, tmp);
> +    }

Missing empty line after variable declarations...

> +# Increase timeout
> +set timeout 60
> +verbose "Timeout set to $timeout seconds" 2

Have we determine why it is necessary to increase the timeout to 60?


-- 
Joel