Hello,
Did you get a chance to look at this patch? I submitted this ~1 month
ago, so thought I would inquire its status.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 4:43 PM
> To: Joseph Myers
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [Ping]FW: [PATCH] Cilk Plus merging to trunk (2 of n)
>
> Hello Joseph,
> Here is the fixed patch with all your changes and the ChangeLog entries
> below.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog
> 2012-11-05 Balaji V. Iyer <balaji.v.i...@intel.com>
>
> * Makefile.in (C_COMMON_OBJS): Added c-family/array-notation-
> common.o.
> * doc/passes.texi (Cilk Plus Transformation): Documented array
> notation and overall transformations for Cilk Plus.
> * doc/invoke.texi (C Dialect Options): Documented -fcilkplus flag.
> * doc/generic.texi (Storage References): Documented
> ARRAY_NOTATION_REF
> tree addition.
>
> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog
> 2012-11-05 Balaji V. Iyer <balaji.v.i...@intel.com>
>
> * c-common.h (build_array_notation_expr): New function declaration.
> (ARRAY_NOTATION_ARRAY): Added new #define.
> (ARRAY_NOTATION_CHECK): Likewise.
> (ARRAY_NOTATION_START): Likewise.
> (ARRAY_NOTATION_LENGTH): Likewise.
> (ARRAY_NOTATION_STRIDE): Likewise.
> (ARRAY_NOTATION_TYPE): Likewise.
> (enum array_notation_reduce_type): Added new enumerator.
> * c-common.def: Added new tree ARRAY_NOTATION_REF.
> * c-common.c (c_define_builtins): Added a call to initialize array
> notation builtin functions.
> (c_common_init_ts): Set ARRAY_NOTATION_REF as typed.
> * c-pretty-print.c (pp_c_postfix_expression): Added ARRAY_NOTATION_REF
> case.
> * c.opt (-fcilkplus): Define new command line switch.
> * array-notation-common.c: New file.
>
> gcc/c/ChangeLog
> 2012-11-05 Balaji V. Iyer <balaji.v.i...@intel.com>
>
> * c-typeck.c (build_array_ref): Added a check to see if array's index
> is greater than one. If true, then emit an error.
> (build_function_call_vec): Exclude error reporting & checking for
> builtin array-notation functions.
> (convert_arguments): Likewise.
> (c_finish_return): Added a check for array notations as a return
> expression. If true, then emit an error.
> (c_finish_loop): Added a check for array notations in a loop
> condition.
> If true then emit an error.
> (lvalue_p): Added a ARRAY_NOTATION_REF case.
> * Make-lang.in (C_AND_OBJC_OBJS): Added c-array-notation.o.
> * c-parser.c (c_parser_compound_statement): Check if array notation
> code
> is used in tree, if so, then transform them into appropriate C code.
> (c_parser_expr_no_commas): Check if array notation is used in LHS or
> RHS, if so, then build array notation expression instead of regular
> modify.
> (c_parser_postfix_expression_after_primary): Added a check for
> colon(s)
> after square braces, if so then handle it like an array notation.
> Also,
> break up array notations in unary op if found.
> (c_parser_direct_declarator_inner): Added a check for array notation.
> (c_parser_compound_statement): Added a check for array notation in a
> stmt. If one is present, then expand array notation expr.
> (c_parser_if_statement): Likewise.
> (c_parser_switch_statement): Added a check for array notations in a
> switch statement's condition. If true, then output an error.
> (c_parser_while_statement): Same as switch statement, but for a while.
> (c_parser_do_statement): Same as switch statement, but for a do-while.
> (c_parser_for_statement): Same as switch statement, but for a
> for-loop.
> (c_parser_unary_expression): Check if array notation is used in a
> pre-increment or pre-decrement expression. If true, then expand them.
> (c_parser_array_notation): New function.
> * c-array-notation.c: New file.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> 2012-11-05 Balaji V. Iyer <balaji.v.i...@intel.com>
>
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/execute.exp: New script.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/compile.exp: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/errors.exp: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/sec_implicit_ex.c: New test.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/comma_exp.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/conditional.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/exec-once.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/if_test.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/n-ptr_test.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/gather_scatter.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/builtin_func_double2.c:
> Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/builtin_func_double.c:
> Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/builtin_fn_custom.c:
> Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/builtin_fn_mutating.c:
> Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/array_test_ND.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/array_test2.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/execute/array_test1.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/sec_implicit_ex.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/gather_scatter.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/builtin_func_double2.c:
> Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/array_test_ND.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/if_test.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/builtin_func_double.c:
> Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/array_test1.c: Likewise
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/array_test2.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/sec_implicit.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/sec_implicit2.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/rank_mismatch.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/parse_error.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/parse_error2.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/parse_error3.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/parse_error4.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/sec_reduce_max_min_ind.c:
> Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/decl-ptr-colon.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/fn_ptr.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/fn_triplet_values.c:
> Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/gather-scatter.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/misc.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/errors/vla.c: Likewise.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Balaji V. Iyer.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 5:38 PM
> > To: Iyer, Balaji V
> > Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: RE: [Ping]FW: [PATCH] Cilk Plus merging to trunk (2 of n)
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> >
> > > >>>>Here is a link to the latest spec. This should clear several of
> > > >>>>the questions you are seeking.
> > > >>>>(http://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/m/4/e/7/3/1/40297
> > > >>>>-
> > > >>>>Intel_Cilk_plus_lang_spec_2.htm#array)
> >
> > This specification is much improved, especially as regards specifying
> > the types of section expressions. I'm not convinced that "the type of'
> > the array being subscripted shall have a declared size" is properly
> > defined in standard terms, but I can guess reasonable semantics - that
> > if the array-to-pointer decay were considered not to occur in such a
> > context, then the expressions for the array being subscripted shall
> > have array type, not pointer type, and the array type shall not be one
> > with unspecified size (array[]), although it may be a VLA. For
> > example, given "int a[10];", it would be valid to say a[:] or (a)[:]
> > but not (+a)[:]. I don't, however, see any testcases at all in this
> > patch for that particular requirements - not even for the completely
> > clear-cut
> cases, such as giving an error for "extern int a[]; a[:];" or "int *a; a[:];".
> >
> > Say expr1 through expr9 are expressions with side effects, and you have:
> >
> > expr1[expr2:expr3:expr4] = expr5[expr6:expr7:expr8] + expr9;
> >
> > The spec says "However, in such a statement, a sub-expression with
> > rank zero is evaluated only once." - that is, each of the nine
> > expressions is evaluated once. I don't see any calls to save_expr to
> > ensure these semantics, or any testcases that verify that they are adhered
> > to.
> >
> > (Are multidimensional section expressions valid when what you have is
> > pointers to pointers, e.g. "int ***p; p[0:10][0:10][0:10];"? I don't
> > see anything to rule them out, so I assume they are valid, but don't
> > see testcases for them either.)
> >
> > Looking at the patch itself:
> >
> > In find_rank you have error ("Rank Mismatch!"); - this is not a
> > properly formatted error message according to the GNU Coding standards
> > (which typically would not have any uppercase). I'd also suggest that
> > when you find a rank, you store (through a location_t * pointer) the
> > location of the first expression found with that rank, so if you then
> > find a mismatching rank you can use error_at to point to that rank and
> > then inform to point to the previous rank it didn't match.
> >
> > I'm not convinced that your logic, falling back to examining each
> > operand for a generic expression, is correct to find the ranks of all
> > kinds of expressions. For example, there are rules:
> >
> > * "The rank of a simple subscript expression (postfix-expression [
> > expression ]) is the sum of the ranks of its operand expressions. The
> > rank of the subscript operand shall not be greater than one." - how do
> > you ensure this rule? Where do you test for errors if the subscript
> > has too high a rank (both in the front-end code, and in the
> > testsuite), and test (in the testsuite) for cases where the subscript has
> > rank 1?
> >
> > * "The rank of a comma expression is the rank of its second operand."
> > - I don't see anything special to handle that. Are there testcases
> > for rank of comma expressions? Apart from testing rank, you may need
> > to test how they are evaluated (that each part, with independent rank,
> > gets fully evaluted in turn) - I don't see anything obvious in the code to
> > handle
> them appropriately.
> >
> > In general, I'd say you should have tests in the testsuite for each
> > syntactic type of expression supported by GCC, both standard and GNU
> > extensions, testing how it interacts with section expressions - both
> > valid cases, and cases that are invalid because of rank mismatches.
> > As another example, you don't have tests of conditional expressions.
> >
> > Where do you test (both in code, and testcases to verify errors) that
> > "The rank of each expression in a section triplet shall be zero."?
> > What about "The rank of the postfix expression identifying the
> > function to call shall be zero."? "A full expression shall have rank
> > zero, unless it appears in an expression statement or as the
> > controlling expression of an if statement."? (This means, I suppose,
> > that uses such as initializers or sizes in array declarators must be
> > rejected.) I'd advise going through each sentence in the relevant part of
> > the
> spec that says something is invalid and making sure you diagnose it and have a
> test of this.
> >
> > Where in the patch you use int for the size of something (e.g. a list)
> > on the host, please use size_t.
> >
> > In extract_array_notation_exprs you appear to be reallocating every
> > time something is added to a list (with XRESIZEVEC). It would
> > probably be more efficient to use the vec.h infrastructure for an
> > automatically resizing vector on which you push things.
> >
> > In c_parser_array_notation you appear to be converting indices to
> > integer_type_node in some cases, not converting at all in other cases.
> > But the spec says "The expressions in a triplet are converted to
> > ptrdiff_t.", so you need to convert to target ptrdiff_t, not target int.
> > And there's a requirement that "Each of the expressions in a section
> > triplet shall have integer type.". So you need to check that, and
> > give an error if it doesn't have integer type, before converting - and
> > of course add testcases for each of the possible positions for an
> > expression having one that doesn't have integer type.
> >
> > In c-typeck.c you disable some errors and warnings for expressions
> > containing array notations. I don't know where the later point is at
> > which you check for such errors - but in any case, you need testcases
> > for these diagnostics on those cases to show that they aren't being lost.
> >
> > In invoke.texi you have:
> >
> > +@opindex flag_enable_cilkplus
> >
> > But @opindex is for the user-visible options, not for internal variables.
> > That is,
> >
> > @opindex fcilkplus
> >
> > would be appropriate.
> >
> > In passes.texi you refer to "the Cilk runtime library (located in
> > libcilkrts directory)". But no such directory is added by this patch.
> > Only add references to it in documentation with the patch that adds
> > the directory.
> >
> > --
> > Joseph S. Myers
> > jos...@codesourcery.com
