[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From c06ce375baf4a73818a225ec806fe143bee730fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 06:35:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support This is a mini

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From d83105c32a48d73fe547523841a115d6863f7799 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 06:35:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support This is a

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From d83105c32a48d73fe547523841a115d6863f7799 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 06:35:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support This is a mini

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse (PR #96087)

https://github.com/jtb20 created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96087 This patch adds a diagnostic which attempts to detect the case where the "collapse" clause is used with imperfectly-nested parallel loops, something like this: #pragma omp target #pragma omp parallel for colla

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse (PR #96087)

jtb20 wrote: Adding @jdoerfert https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96087 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

jtb20 wrote: Ping? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse (PR #96087)

https://github.com/jtb20 edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96087 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From 822249a1f45ce1341e71a9c99dec081d8e8d077f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 13:58:22 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse This patch add

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse (PR #96087)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96087 >From 822249a1f45ce1341e71a9c99dec081d8e8d077f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 13:58:22 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse This patch add

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From edbcd82b8a91766cea9e988e0f37acd685ff7d97 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 06:35:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support This is a mini

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fopenmp -x c++ -std=c++11 -ast-print %s | FileCheck %s +// expected-no-diagnostics + +extern int bar(int); + +int foo(int arg) +{ + #pragma omp assume no_openmp_routines + { +auto fn = [](int x) { return bar(x); }; +// CHECK: auto fn = [

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

jtb20 wrote: > don't you need more code in AST? Sorry, I don't quite understand the question! Could you elaborate a little please? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.l

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From 4337a97fb8982addfd6740db2ff08dfb0398842e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 06:35:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support This is a mini

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From 945c37825742aa6a988ee1bf74b0f3feefbbd906 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 06:35:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support This patch sup

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

@@ -2013,6 +2014,179 @@ class OMPMergeableClause : public OMPClause { } }; +/// This represents the 'absent' clause in the '#pragma omp assume' +/// directive. +/// +/// \code +/// #pragma omp assume absent() +/// \endcode +/// In this example directive '#pragma omp assume'

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From a00ae52b9d7200b2a6c90515bf7b251d6b7f0137 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 06:35:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support This patch sup

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

https://github.com/jtb20 created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101305 This patch fixes a couple of cases where Clang aborts with loop nests that are being collapsed (via the relevant OpenMP clause) into a new, combined loop. The problematic cases happen when a variable declared wit

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

jtb20 wrote: @jdoerfert @alexey-bataev https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101305 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101305 >From eb60fc7c8d02877d2f8de73057c1153444cc740c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:21:01 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nes

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From fc4e93006a8a1def0fabdc358ce85fac267e5a63 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 06:35:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support This patch sup

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From f6addc40ef18c3ca28ee79303bace08d30dc9817 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 06:35:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support This patch sup

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

@@ -7668,6 +7669,47 @@ struct LoopIterationSpace final { Expr *FinalCondition = nullptr; }; +class ForSubExprChecker : public RecursiveASTVisitor { + const llvm::SmallSet *CollapsedLoopVarDecls; + VarDecl *ForbiddenVar; + SourceRange ErrLoc; + +public: + explicit ForSubE

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

@@ -7668,6 +7669,47 @@ struct LoopIterationSpace final { Expr *FinalCondition = nullptr; }; +class ForSubExprChecker : public RecursiveASTVisitor { + const llvm::SmallSet *CollapsedLoopVarDecls; + VarDecl *ForbiddenVar; + SourceRange ErrLoc; + +public: + explicit ForSubE

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

@@ -7668,6 +7669,47 @@ struct LoopIterationSpace final { Expr *FinalCondition = nullptr; }; +class ForSubExprChecker : public RecursiveASTVisitor { + const llvm::SmallSet *CollapsedLoopVarDecls; + VarDecl *ForbiddenVar; + SourceRange ErrLoc; + +public: + explicit ForSubE

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101305 >From 2d318c6504b43d8a9521dc5567c1da4d6cd986a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:21:01 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nes

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

jtb20 wrote: OpenMPIterationSpaceChecker is still passed a pointer to CollapsedLoopDecls, because one caller passes a nullptr, and we don't want to do the analysis in that case. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101305 ___ cfe-commits mailing

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101305 >From 32c370577279b6ba9a5947b8936c8852ae809e07 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:21:01 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nes

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

jtb20 wrote: > > OpenMPIterationSpaceChecker is still passed a pointer to > > CollapsedLoopDecls, because one caller passes a nullptr, and we don't want > > to do the analysis in that case. > > Still pass by reference, just pass empty where it is not required So the new pushed version does th

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

@@ -2013,6 +2064,184 @@ class OMPMergeableClause : public OMPClause { } }; +/// This represents the 'absent' clause in the '#pragma omp assume' +/// directive. +/// +/// \code +/// #pragma omp assume absent() +/// \endcode +/// In this example directive '#pragma omp assume'

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

@@ -342,6 +342,57 @@ template class OMPVarListClause : public OMPClause { } }; +template class OMPDirectiveListClause : public OMPClause { jtb20 wrote: The idea was to factor out common functionality shared by absent/contains clauses. It doesn't do a hu

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From 73257cd3390361fa71735a39290dd47427916734 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 14:49:28 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/8] [OpenMP][clang] Add 'holds' clause for 'omp assume' directive --

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

jtb20 wrote: The compiler builds for each intermediate step, but the result isn't necessarily useful until the 'omp assume' patch. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.ll

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101305 >From 0d9ee78eb214135b10ecb5258358728e0fc626e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:21:01 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nes

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

jtb20 wrote: Thank you! I don't have commit access, so do you mind committing it for me please? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101305 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cf

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From b3d00ab3f6457094a8ccf4df03b72976e96cd307 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 14:49:28 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/8] [OpenMP][clang] Add 'holds' clause for 'omp assume' directive --

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse (PR #96087)

jtb20 wrote: ping? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96087 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

jtb20 wrote: Thank you for the review! Again, I do not have commit access, so please apply for me if possible. Julian https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-b

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

jtb20 wrote: Hopefully fixed by: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102008 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

jtb20 wrote: On 06/08/2024 19:40, Valentin Clement (バレンタイン クレメン) wrote: > > This is still breaking a buildbot. > https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/157/builds/4246 > > > Are you working on a fix? It seems to be the same bug

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

jtb20 wrote: Thank you for the update! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse (PR #96087)

jtb20 wrote: ping? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96087 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang][OpenMP] Diagnose badly-formed collapsed imperfect loop nests (#60678) (PR #101305)

jtb20 wrote: Ping -- could this patch be applied please? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101305 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse (PR #96087)

jtb20 wrote: > > FWIW, I don't think there's a reasonable, safe way to collapse loops like > > this and maintain parallel semantics, but ICBW. > > I think, there is a proper way. Just annotate these instructions with > something like: > > ``` > if (first inner loop iteration) { > arr[i][i]

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse (PR #96087)

jtb20 wrote: > something like > > ``` > bool Init[N] = {false}; > for (int ij = 0; ij < N*N; ij++) { > int i = ij / N, j = ij % N; > #pragma omp critical > if (!Init[i]) { > arr2[i] = i; > Init[i] = true; > } > arr1[i][j] += arr2[i]; > } > ``` I don't think synthesizing a crit

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse (PR #96087)

jtb20 wrote: > > I don't think synthesizing a critical region inside the collapsed loop will > > be a win overall, and also I don't quite see how it helps in this case. A > > correct version would be doing something like serialising the loop, I > > think, which I suppose sort of bypasses the p

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse (PR #96087)

jtb20 wrote: Can you explain why the critical section version of the code is safe, and why it is an improvement over simply not collapsing the loop? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96087 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.or

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] Diagnostic check for imperfect loop collapse (PR #96087)

jtb20 wrote: > > Can you explain why the critical section version of the code is safe, and > > why it is an improvement over simply not collapsing the loop? > > 1. I'm not saying it is safe, I'm just saying that something like this might > be safe > 2. Without properly collapsing the loops, th

[clang] [OpenMP] SemaOpenMP.cpp and StmtOpenMP.cpp spelling fixes (PR #96814)

https://github.com/jtb20 created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96814 This patch just fixes a few spelling mistakes in the above two files. (I changed one British spelling to American -- analyse to analyze -- because the latter spelling is used elsewhere in file, and it's probably be

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From 65db444a6faf8d246e286e04675f2b0a06909723 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 06:35:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support This is a mini

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fopenmp -x c++ -std=c++11 -ast-print %s | FileCheck %s +// expected-no-diagnostics + +extern int bar(int); + +int foo(int arg) +{ + #pragma omp assume no_openmp_routines + { +auto fn = [](int x) { return bar(x); }; +// CHECK: auto fn = [

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

jtb20 wrote: > > > don't you need more code in AST? > > > > > > Sorry, I don't quite understand the question! Could you elaborate a little > > please? > > I was thinking maybe you need changes in AST related files, like > `ASTWriter.cpp`, but that might be not needed as this is adding a new

[clang] [llvm] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (PR #92731)

https://github.com/jtb20 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92731 >From 9107c1a0b215cc9af17f0168961b59edca3a9127 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julian Brown Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 06:35:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support This is a mini

[clang] [llvm] [Clang][OpenMP] Support for dispatch construct (Sema & Codegen) support (PR #117904)

jtb20 wrote: The failures with this patch and not mine are just: PASS->FAIL: tests/5.1/dispatch/test_dispatch_is_device_ptr.c run PASS->FAIL: tests/5.1/dispatch/test_dispatch_nowait.c run that's actually probably neither here nor there, the clauses in question aren't implemented in my patch ye

[clang] [OpenMP] Mark 'map-type modifiers in arbitrary position' done (PR #133906)

https://github.com/jtb20 closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133906 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits