Hi Cesar! On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 08:54:46 -0700, Cesar Philippidis <ce...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 08/01/2016 08:29 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 17:21:37 +0200, I wrote: > >> Some checking of OpenACC clauses currently done in the front ends should > >> be moved later, and be unified. (Also, I suppose, for supporting of the > >> device_type clause, such checking actually *must* be moved later, into > >> the oaccdevlow pass, or similar.) Here is a first preparatory patch. OK > >> for trunk? > >> > >> commit e02a9b65c505b404f8d985b0ec6ccb99d73515d3 > >> Author: Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com> > >> Date: Wed Jul 27 15:54:38 2016 +0200 > >> > >> Use verify_oacc_routine_clauses for C/C++ > > > > Here is a Fortran patch. This depends on other Fortran patches in flight > > (such as Cesar's), and on PR72741 "Fortran OpenACC routine directive > > doesn't properly handle clauses specifying the level of parallelism" be > > resolved, and thereabouts, but I'm posting it anyway, in case anyone has > > any review comments already. I suppose, to begin with, the call of > > gfc_oacc_routine_dims will move later into the Fortran front end > > pipeline, to the point then function declarations' attributes are set, or > > similar. Also, as discussed already, the Fortran front end currently is > > very "forgetful" in regards to OpenACC/OpenMP clauses' specific location > > information, so we're not able at present to produce diagnostics with > > precise location information. > > Are you planning on staging this patch in gomp4?
As we discussed yesterday, I was planning to wait for the corresponding
Fortran front end changes to materialize, and then handle it all
together, for C, C++, and Fortran.
> I know it's a work in
> progress, but is this function ...
> > --- gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.c
> > +++ gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.c
> > +/* Determine and verify the level of parallelism for an OpenACC routine.
> > */
> > +
> > +oacc_function
> > +gfc_oacc_routine_dims (gfc_omp_clauses *clauses, locus location)
> > +{
> > + [...]
>
> included elsewhere in your patch set? I'll take over this patch as I
> work on PR72741.
I don't know what exactly you mean with "included"? Also, as I
elaborated in <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741#c3>,
actually this function should "ideally just call
gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.c:gfc_trans_omp_clauses to translate the Fortran
OMP clauses representation into OMP_CLAUSE trees" (if that makes sense).
Anyway, feel free to take over this function/patch as required.
Grüße
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
