Hi Cesar!
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 15:37:17 -0800, Cesar Philippidis
<cesar_philippi...@mentor.com> wrote:
> On 12/01/2015 06:49 AM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> > On 12/01/2015 06:40 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> >
> >> I noticed while working on other test cases:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:02:01 -0800, Cesar Philippidis
> >> <ce...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> >>> --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
> >>> +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
> >>
> >>> @@ -1318,13 +1318,21 @@ cp_finalize_omp_declare_simd (cp_parser *parser,
> >>> tree fndecl)
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> -/* Diagnose if #pragma omp routine isn't followed immediately
> >>> - by function declaration or definition. */
> >>> +/* Diagnose if #pragma acc routine isn't followed immediately by function
> >>> + declaration or definition. */
> >>>
> >>> static inline void
> >>> cp_ensure_no_oacc_routine (cp_parser *parser)
> >>> {
> >>> - cp_finalize_oacc_routine (parser, NULL_TREE, false, true);
> >>> + if (parser->oacc_routine && !parser->oacc_routine->error_seen)
> >>> + {
> >>> + tree clauses = parser->oacc_routine->clauses;
> >>> + location_t loc = OMP_CLAUSE_LOCATION (TREE_PURPOSE(clauses));
> >>> +
> >>> + error_at (loc, "%<#pragma oacc routine%> not followed by function "
> >>> + "declaration or definition");
> >>> + parser->oacc_routine = NULL;
> >>> + }
> >>> }> >> Next, in the function quoted above, you use "not followed by function > >> declaration or definition", but you use "not followed by a single > >> function declaration or definition" in a lot of (but not all) other > >> places -- is that intentional? > > > > I probably wasn't being consistent. Which error message do you prefer? > > I'll take a look at what the c front end does. > > > >> For example: [...] > >> (I have not verified all of the parser(s) source code.) > > > > Thanks. I'll go through and update the comments and error messages. > > Here's the updated patch. ENOPATCH. > The test cases were written in a way such that > none of them needed to be updated with these changes. ... which potentially means they'd match for all kinds of "random" diagnostics. ;-) > I'm tempted to commit this as obvious, but I want to make sure you're ok > with these new messages. I don't care very much, as long as it's understandable for a user. I just tripped over this because of mismatches between C and C++ as well as different C++ diagnostic variants. > The major change is to report these errors as > "pragma acc routine not followed by a function declaration or > definition". I think that's more descriptive then "not followed by a > single function". That said, it looks like the c front end uses the > latter error message. (In the C front end, the "a" is missing: "not followed by single function"; that should be fixed up as well.) > Is this OK or do you prefer the "not followed by a single function" message? "not followed by a function declaration or definition" sounds good to me. Grüße Thomas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
