On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:22:01PM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> + while (ret == MATCH_YES)
> {
> - if (cp->gang_static)
> - return MATCH_ERROR;
> + if (gfc_match (" static :") == MATCH_YES)
> + {
> + if (cp->gang_static)
> + return MATCH_ERROR;
It might be useful to gfc_error before this (i.e. follow a rule,
if you return MATCH_ERROR where MATCH_ERROR has not been returned before,
you emit gfc_error, if it has been returned from nested calls, you don't),
but it is not a big deal, worse case you get the cryptic generic error.
Let's keep it as is for now.
> + /* The 'num' arugment is optional. */
Typo, argument.
> + if (gfc_match (" num :") == MATCH_ERROR)
> + return MATCH_ERROR;
This is unnecessary (I mean the == MATCH_ERROR check), gfc_match for
no % operands in it will never return MATCH_ERROR (why would it?),
just MATCH_YES or MATCH_NO.
> + else if (gwv == GOMP_DIM_VECTOR)
> + {
> + /* The 'length' arugment is optional. */
See above.
> + if (gfc_match (" length :") == MATCH_ERROR)
And once more.
> @@ -1275,8 +1308,8 @@ gfc_match_omp_clauses (gfc_omp_clauses **cp, uint64_t
> mask,
> continue;
> if ((mask & OMP_CLAUSE_TILE)
> && !c->tile_list
> - && match_oacc_expr_list ("tile (", &c->tile_list,
> - true) == MATCH_YES)
> + && match_oacc_expr_list ("tile (", &c->tile_list, true)
> + == MATCH_YES)
Why this hunk? I think it is better to put the line break before the last
argument here, you don't have to decide if it shouldn't be surrounded by
&& (match_oacc... (...)
== MATCH_YES))
Otherwise LGTM.
Jakub
