Hi!
On 2022-10-18T15:59:24+0100, Julian Brown <jul...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:46:07 +0200 Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2022-10-14T13:38:56+0000, Julian Brown <jul...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> ..., but to my surprised, that did fire in one occasion:
>>
>> > --- a/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-fortran/privatized-ref-2.f90
>> > +++ b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-fortran/privatized-ref-2.f90
>> > @@ -94,9 +94,7 @@ contains
>> > !$acc parallel copy(array)
>> > !$acc loop gang private(array) ! { dg-line l_loop[incr c_loop] }
>> > ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause isn't candidate for
>> > adjusting OpenACC privatization level: not addressable} "" { target *-*-*
>> > } l_loop$c_loop }
>> > - ! { dg-note {variable 'array\.[0-9]+' in 'private' clause is
>> > candidate for adjusting OpenACC privatization level} "" { target *-*-* }
>> > l_loop$c_loop }
>> > - ! { dg-note {variable 'array\.[0-9]+' ought to be adjusted for
>> > OpenACC privatization level: 'gang'} "" { target *-*-* } l_loop$c_loop }
>> > - ! { dg-note {variable 'array\.[0-9]+' adjusted for OpenACC
>> > privatization level: 'gang'} "" { target { ! { openacc_host_selected || {
>> > openacc_nvidia_accel_selected && __OPTIMIZE__ } } } } l_loop$c_loop }
>> > + ! { dg-note {variable 'array\.[0-9]+' in 'private' clause isn't
>> > candidate for adjusting OpenACC privatization level: artificial} "" {
>> > target *-*-* } l_loop$c_loop }
>> > ! { dg-message {sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca}
>> > PR65181 { target openacc_nvidia_accel_selected } l_loop$c_loop }
>> > do i = 1, 10
>> > array(i) = 9*i
>>
>> ... here. Note "variable 'array\.[0-9]+' in 'private' clause";
>> everywhere else we have "declared in block".
>>
>> As part of your verification, have you already looked into whether the
>> new behavior is correct here, or does this one need to continue to be
>> "adjusted for OpenACC privatization level: 'gang'"? If the latter,
>> should we check 'if (res && block && DECL_ARTIFICIAL (decl))' instead
>> of 'if (res && DECL_ARTIFICIAL (decl))', or is there some wrong
>> setting of 'DECL_ARTIFICIAL' -- or are we maybe looking at an
>> inappropriate 'decl'? (Thinking of commit
>> r12-7580-g7a5e036b61aa088e6b8564bc9383d37dfbb4801e "[OpenACC
>> privatization] Analyze 'lookup_decl'-translated DECL [PR90115,
>> PR102330, PR104774]", for example.)
>
> I haven't looked in detail, but it seems to me that the "artificial"
> flag isn't appropriate for that decl, which is (derived from?) a
> user-visible symbol. So, I'm not sure what's going on there (and yes
> the commit you mention looks like it could be relevant, I think?).
> There are probably subtleties I'm not aware of...
Until we've got that worked out, let's simply restrict the
'DECL_ARTIFICIAL' handling to 'block's only; pushed to devel/omp/gcc-12
commit 9a50d282f03f7f1e1ad00de917143a2a8e0c0ee0
"[og12] OpenACC: Don't gang-privatize artificial variables: restrict to blocks",
see attached.
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
