> -----Original Message----- > From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 2:38 AM > To: Aldy Hernandez > Cc: Jason Merrill; gcc-patches; Iyer, Balaji V > Subject: Re: PING: Fwd: Re: [patch] implement Cilk Plus simd loops on trunk > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 06:29:50PM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > > >Well, if you don't change anything in omp-low.c, then it wouldn't > > >diagnose setjmp call in #pragma simd, but given that also the OpenMP > > >4.0 spec requires that #pragma omp simd doesn't contain calls to > > >setjmp or longjmp (ditto for #pragma omp declare simd functions), > > >then scan_omp_1_stmt should be changed to also call > > >check_omp_nesting_restrictions for setjmp/longjmp calls (the > > >GIMPLE_CALL case then in check_omp_nesting_restrictions can't assume > > >all calls it sees are BUILT_IN_NORMAL). > > > > Fixed in scan_omp_1_stmt. > > Well, setjmp_call_p is not just setjmp, but various other functions, including > getcontext, fork, vfork and many others, but it isn't longjmp. > I'd say we should just follow the spec and look solely for setjmp/longjmp, for > the others perhaps we can warn (though I think it isn't a big deal, we are > never going to vectorize those), but not error. > > > >Perhaps some bool is_cilkplus = false argument to > > >cp_parser_omp_clause_reduction would work for me (and for C too). > > > > Ok, I'm at a loss here, what parts of cp_parser_omp_clause_reduction > > are the user-defined reductions? I'm an OpenMP weenie. > > I guess it depends on what the Cilk+ spec says about reduction clause, and > from what I saw it is just too vague. > http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/doclib/stdxe/2013 > /composerxe/compiler/cpp-win/index.htm#GUID-44B505B6-01AF-4865- > 8DF4-AF851F51DDA1.htm
Just an FYI, this is the language specification: https://www.cilkplus.org/sites/default/files/open_specifications/Intel_Cilk_plus_lang_spec_1.2.htm
