ABataev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/StmtOpenMP.h:4781-4784
+/// This represents the '#pragma omp tile' loop transformation directive.
+class OMPTileDirective final
+ : public OMPLoopDirective,
+ private llvm::TrailingObjects<OMPTileDirective, OMPClause *, Stmt *> {
----------------
Meinersbur wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > Meinersbur wrote:
> > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > Not sure that this is a good idea to treat this directive as the
> > > > executable directive. To me, it looks like kind of `AttributedStmt`.
> > > > Maybe better to introduce some kind of a new base node for this and
> > > > similar constructs, which does not own the loop but is its kind of
> > > > attribute-like entity?
> > > > Also, can we have something like:
> > > > ```
> > > > #pragma omp simd
> > > > #pragma omp tile ...
> > > > for(...) ;
> > > > ```
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > While not executed at runtime, syntactically it is parsed like a
> > > executable (loop-associated) directive. IMHO it does 'own' the loop, but
> > > produces another one for to be owned(/associated) by a different
> > > directive, as in your tile/simd example, which should already work.
> > > Allowing this was the motivation to do the transformation on the
> > > AST-level for now.
> > I'm not saying that we should separate parsing of this directive from
> > others, it is just better to treat this directive as a little bit different
> > node. Currently, it introduces too many changes in the base classes. Better
> > to create a new base class, that does not relies on `CapturedStmt` as the
> > base, and derive `OMPExecutableDirective` and this directive and other
> > similar (+ maybe, `OMPSimdDirective`) from this new base class.
> Unless you tell me otherwise, `OMPLoopDirective` represents a loop-associated
> directive. `#pragma omp tile` is a loop-associated directive.
> `OMPLoopDirective` contains all the functionality to parse associated loops,
> and unfortunately if derived from `OMPExecutableDirective`.
>
> You seem to ask me to create a new class
> "OMPDirectiveAssociatedWithLoopButNotExecutable" that duplicates the parsing
> part of "OMPLoopDirective"? This will either be a lot of duplicated code or
> result in even more changes to the base classes due to the refactoring.
>
> By the OpenMP specification, simd and tile are executable directives, so
> structurally I think the class hierarchy as-is makes sense. From the glossary
> of the upcoming OpenMP 5.1:
> > An OpenMP directive that appears in an executable context and results in
> > implementation code and/or prescribes the manner in which associated user
> > code must execute.
>
> Avoiding a CapturedStmt when not needed would a modification of
> `clang::getOpenMPCaptureRegions` which currently adds a capture of type
> `OMPD_unknown` for such directives. This is unrelated to loop-associated
> directives.
>
No, this is not what I'm asking for. I asked you to think about adding a new
level of abstraction somewhere between the `OMPLoop...` and
`OMPExecutableDirective` classes to minimize the functional changes and make
the classes more robust. Anyway, give me a week or so to try to find possible
better abstractions and if there are no better ones, we'll proceed with your
original solution.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76342/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76342
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
