================
@@ -216,31 +215,50 @@ bool
ClauseProcessor::processMotionClauses(lower::StatementContext &stmtCtx,
if (origSymbol && fir::isTypeWithDescriptor(origSymbol.getType()))
symAddr = origSymbol;
+ if (object.sym()->owner().IsDerivedType()) {
+ omp::ObjectList objectList = gatherObjects(object, semaCtx);
+ parentObj = objectList[0];
+ parentMemberIndices.insert({parentObj.value(), {}});
+ if (Fortran::semantics::IsAllocatableOrObjectPointer(
+ object.sym()) ||
+ memberHasAllocatableParent(object, semaCtx)) {
+ llvm::SmallVector<int> indices =
+ generateMemberPlacementIndices(object, semaCtx);
+ symAddr = createParentSymAndGenIntermediateMaps(
+ clauseLocation, converter, objectList, indices,
+ parentMemberIndices[parentObj.value()], asFortran.str(),
+ mapTypeBits);
+ }
+ }
+
----------------
agozillon wrote:
Thank you! It's intentional unfortunately. I will create a PR after this lands
to align the two functions, so replication isn't required anymore. They're two
seperate types of map clauses (motion clauses and regular map clauses, with
motion clauses being a subset of the map clauses) that appear on different
directives. When the motion clauses were added I think it was kept seperate
incase it had any special considerations, but as we've been moving forward with
the map work it's just been replicating the code across both.
So merging them into one is something I'd very much like to do. It might be out
of the scope of this PR though. So I am happy to do it in a follow up PR once
this lands!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96266
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
