On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:59:16PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > There is also OEP_LEXICOGRAPHIC which could be used in addition to that.
> > The question is if we want to consider say
> > #pragma depobj (a[++i]) destroy (a[++i])
> > as same or different (similarly a[foo ()] in both cases).
>
>
Hi Jakub,
On 23.11.23 16:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:21:50PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
@@ -21663,7 +21666,25 @@ c_parser_omp_depobj (c_parser *parser)
+ else if (depobj != error_mark_node
+ && !operand_equal_p (destobj, depobj,
+
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:21:50PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> @@ -21663,7 +21666,25 @@ c_parser_omp_depobj (c_parser *parser)
> clause = error_mark_node;
> }
>else if (!strcmp ("destroy", p))
> - kind = OMP_CLAUSE_DEPEND_LAST;
> + {
> + matching_parens c_par
Hi Jakub,
On 23.11.23 15:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 03:21:41PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
I stumbled over this trivial omission which blocks some testcases.
I am not sure whether I have solved the is-same-expr most elegantly,
Answer: I didn't - as expected.
+ if (DECL_U
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 03:21:41PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> I stumbled over this trivial omission which blocks some testcases.
>
> I am not sure whether I have solved the is-same-expr most elegantly,
> but I did loosely follow the duplicated-entry check for 'map'. As that's
> a restriction to
I stumbled over this trivial omission which blocks some testcases.
I am not sure whether I have solved the is-same-expr most elegantly,
but I did loosely follow the duplicated-entry check for 'map'. As that's
a restriction to the user, we don't have to catch all and I hope the code
catches the mo
