abidmalikwaterloo marked an inline comment as done.
abidmalikwaterloo added inline comments.
Herald added a subscriber: bzcheeseman.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Testing/CMakeLists.txt:29
llvm_gtest
+ clangBasic
+ clangFrontend
----------------
shraiysh wrote:
> abidmalikwaterloo wrote:
> > shraiysh wrote:
> > > unrelated change?
> > When I rebase, these changes were highlighted in the main branch which was
> > missing in the patch as it was too old.
> Hmm, these are in llvm-project/main right now but this means that the patch
> has not been rebased properly. These changes should not be a part of this
> patch :/ Can you try rebasing again? Otherwise this will cause issues
> while/after landing this patch.
git rebase origin arcpatch-D105584 gives " The current branch is up to date".
It means the patch is up to date. Should I remove them manually?
================
Comment at: mlir/include/mlir/Dialect/OpenMP/OpenMPOps.td:514
+ oilist(`schedule` `(`
+ custom<DistributeScheduleClause>(
+ $dist_schedule_var,
----------------
shraiysh wrote:
> abidmalikwaterloo wrote:
> > shraiysh wrote:
> > > dist_schedule is a dummy clause, where kind is only allowed to be
> > > `static` according to the standard. I don't think that requires a custom
> > > function, we can instead have something like the following -
> > > ```
> > > arguments = UnitAttr:$static_dist_schedule,
> > > Optional<IntLikeType>:$schedule_chunk
> > >
> > > assemblyFormat = `dist_schedule` `(` (`static` $static_dist_schedule^)?
> > > (`:` $schedule_chunk^)? `)`
> > > ```
> > > Would that work? Let me know if there are any suggestions.
> > My only concern is; will this be a dummy clause with the static scheduler
> > forever? I am pretty sure dist_schedule will have a dynamic or a user
> > defined scheduling strategy as well to improve the performance of a given
> > application
> If and when it changes in the standard, at that time we can change the
> parsing/printing accordingly. Till then such a function seems unnecessary and
> a possible source of errors because it accepts invalid OpenMP code.
Should it be then? `dist_schedule` `(` (`static` ) (`:` $schedule_chunk^)? `)`
$static_dist_schedule seems redundant???
================
Comment at: mlir/include/mlir/Dialect/OpenMP/OpenMPOps.td:528
+
+ let regions = (region AnyRegion:$region);
+}
----------------
shraiysh wrote:
> abidmalikwaterloo wrote:
> > shraiysh wrote:
> > > I think we need a verifier for this too. There are a couple semantic
> > > checks which we can do in verifier.
> > Can you say more about the semantic checks you have in mind?
> The following restriction from the standard can be added to the
> verifier/Operation definition -
> > The region corresponding to the distribute construct must be strictly
> > nested inside a teams region.
>
> The other restrictions - I am okay with not adding them because I don't know
> how they would be added. Needless to say if we figure out how to add them,
> then we should do it.
At this stage, we can add:
LogicalResult DistributeOp::verify(){
return success();
}
We can add the check later!
================
Comment at: mlir/lib/Dialect/OpenMP/IR/OpenMPDialect.cpp:226
+ return parser.emitError(parser.getNameLoc()) <<
+ " expected scheudle kind";
+
----------------
shraiysh wrote:
> nit: schedule spelling.
I do not think we need this if we treat the schedule as a variable?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105584/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105584
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
