shraiysh added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGStmtOpenMP.cpp:2596
// Check for unsupported clauses
- if (!S.clauses().empty()) {
- // Currently no clause is supported
- return false;
+ for (OMPClause *C : S.clauses()) {
+ // Currently only simdlen clause is supported
----------------
psoni2628 wrote:
> psoni2628 wrote:
> > arnamoy10 wrote:
> > > I am just wondering whether we should have a check to make sure that we
> > > are processing the clauses of only `simd` directive here. Because the
> > > function takes a general `OMPExecutableDirective` as argument
> > That's a fair point. I guess `isSupportedByOpenMPIRBuilder` could be used
> > for other directive types other than simd, even though it's not right now.
> Would it make more sense to only guard the checking of clauses with a check
> for `OMPSimdDirective`, or the whole thing? I believe even the code below,
> which checks for an ordered directive, is also specifically for `simd`?
>
>
> Example of guarding the whole thing:
>
> ```
> if(dyn_cast<OMPSimdDirective>(S)) {
> // Check for unsupported clauses
> for (OMPClause *C : S.clauses()) {
> // Currently only simdlen clause is supported
> if (dyn_cast<OMPSimdlenClause>(C))
> continue;
> else
> return false;
> }
>
> // Check if we have a statement with the ordered directive.
> // Visit the statement hierarchy to find a compound statement
> // with a ordered directive in it.
> if (const auto *CanonLoop = dyn_cast<OMPCanonicalLoop>(S.getRawStmt())) {
> if (const Stmt *SyntacticalLoop = CanonLoop->getLoopStmt()) {
> for (const Stmt *SubStmt : SyntacticalLoop->children()) {
> if (!SubStmt)
> continue;
> if (const CompoundStmt *CS = dyn_cast<CompoundStmt>(SubStmt)) {
> for (const Stmt *CSSubStmt : CS->children()) {
> if (!CSSubStmt)
> continue;
> if (isa<OMPOrderedDirective>(CSSubStmt)) {
> return false;
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
> ```
Can we instead have separate `isSupportedByOpenMPIRBuilder` for every directive
to avoid bloating the function with checks and if conditions?
```
static bool isSupportedByOpenMPIRBuilder(const OMPSimdDirective &S) {...}
void CodeGenFunction::EmitOMPSimdDirective(const OMPSimdDirective &S) {...}
static bool isSupportedByOpenMPIRBuilder(const OMPOrderedDirective &S) {...}
void CodeGenFunction::EmitOMPOrderedDirective(const OMPOrderedDirective &S)
{...}
static bool isSupportedByOpenMPIRBuilder(const OMPTaskDirective &S) {...}
void CodeGenFunction::EmitOMPOrderedDirective(const OMPTaskDirective &S) {...}
```
================
Comment at: clang/test/OpenMP/irbuilder_simd.cpp:72
+// CHECK-NEXT: ![[META9]] = distinct !{![[META9]], ![[META10:[0-9]+]],
![[META6]]}
+// CHECK-NEXT: ![[META10]] = !{!"llvm.loop.parallel_accesses", ![[META8]]}
----------------
nit: maybe add newline
================
Comment at: llvm/unittests/Frontend/OpenMPIRBuilderTest.cpp:1773
OMPBuilder.applySimd(DL, CLI);
+ OMPBuilder.applySimdlen(DL, CLI, ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt32Ty(Ctx), 3));
----------------
Can we please add this as a new test instead of modifying the existing one?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D129149/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D129149
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
