On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 08:45:50PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> I guess nobody so far ;-) has been using OpenMP's target update directive
> in templated code -- OK to commit the following, and to which branches
> (4.9, 5, trunk)?
Seems I've missed testcases for target {,update,data} in templates indeed,
generally for C++ I'm trying to add testcases for templates, both when
relevant types are type dependent and whey aren't.
> gcc/cp/
> * pt.c (tsubst_expr) <OMP_TARGET_UPDATE>: Use
> OMP_TARGET_UPDATE_CLAUSES instead of OMP_CLAUSES.
> gcc/testsuite/
> * g++.dg/gomp/tpl-target-update.C: New file.
This is ok for trunk, 5.2 and 4.9.3, thanks for fixing that.
> That said, what is the preferred approach to add support for
> OACC_ENTER_DATA, OACC_EXIT_DATA, OACC_UPDATE? I'm not sure hard-coding
> TREE_OPERAND (t, 0) in gcc/cp/pt.c:tsubst_expr is the way to go, and also
> duplicating the OMP_TARGET_UPDATE code for each of the three OACC_*
> doesn't sound appealing -- especially given that we just "switch"ed on
> the respective tree code, so the O*_CHECK of the respective O*_CLAUSES
> macro is completely redundant. Is it OK to extend gcc/tree.h:OMP_CLAUSES
> so that it can also be used for tree codes that keep clauses in operand
> 0, and then use that here (and also in
> gcc/gimplify.c:gimplify_omp_target_update, for example)?
How could it work when it is operand 1 on some and operand 0 in others.
IMHO, if you want to reuse the same code for OMP_TARGET_UPDATE,
various OACC_* standalone directives (and
OMP_TARGET_ENTER_DATA/OMP_TARGET_EXIT_DATA in OpenMP 4.1), then
you should make sure they are consecutive in target.def and
define OMP_STANDALONE_CLAUSES or OMP_TARGET_STANDALONE_CLAUSES as
a range check between OMP_TARGET_UPDATE and the last OpenACC directive
without body, just clauses.
Jakub
