Hi!
On 2022-07-01T15:06:05+0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> OpenMP: Move omp requires checks to libgomp
This became commit r13-1458-g683f11843974f0bdf42f79cdcbb0c2b43c7b81b0
"OpenMP: Move omp requires checks to libgomp".
As of this, when I need to debug an offloading-compilation ICE, for
example,
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 11:08:16PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>gomp_mutex_lock (®ister_lock);
>
> + if (omp_requires_mask && omp_requires_mask != omp_req)
I'd use if (omp_req && omp_requires_mask && omp_requires_mask != omp_req)
e.g. for the case of mixing GCC <= 12 compiled code with GCC
Updated version attached – I hope I got everything right, but I start to
get tired, I am not 100% sure.
On 01.07.22 18:55, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Perhaps you're just lucky and the stack contains '\0' there?
Probably.
Maybe it would be better to simply use different error message for the
0 vs. no
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 06:31:48PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> This is done in openmp.cc during parsing. The merging you quoted (in
> parse.cc) happens
> after the whole input file has been parsed and resolved. For your test case,
> the
> following error is shown:
>
> test.f90:1:15:
>
> 1
On 01.07.22 16:34, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:06:05PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
[...]
Will Fortran diagnose:
subroutine foo
!$omp requires unified_shared_memory
!$omp target
!$omp end target
end subroutine foo
subroutine bar
!$omp requires reverse_offload
!$omp target
!$omp
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:06:05PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> --- a/gcc/fortran/parse.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/parse.cc
> @@ -1168,7 +1168,8 @@ decode_omp_directive (void)
> }
>switch (ret)
> {
> -case ST_OMP_DECLARE_TARGET:
> +/* Set omp_target_seen; exclude ST_OMP_DECLARE_T
