On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:33:56AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> @@ -1044,21 +1046,6 @@ gfc_omp_finish_clause (tree c, gimple_seq *pre_p)
> return;
>
> tree decl = OMP_CLAUSE_DECL (c);
> -
> - /* Assumed-size arrays can't be mapped implicitly, they have to be
> - mapped explicitly using array sections. */
> - if (TREE_CODE (decl) == PARM_DECL
> - && GFC_ARRAY_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (decl))
> - && GFC_TYPE_ARRAY_AKIND (TREE_TYPE (decl)) == GFC_ARRAY_UNKNOWN
> - && GFC_TYPE_ARRAY_UBOUND (TREE_TYPE (decl),
> - GFC_TYPE_ARRAY_RANK (TREE_TYPE (decl)) - 1)
> - == NULL)
> - {
> - error_at (OMP_CLAUSE_LOCATION (c),
> - "implicit mapping of assumed size array %qD", decl);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> tree c2 = NULL_TREE, c3 = NULL_TREE, c4 = NULL_TREE;
> if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (decl)))
> {
I don't have time to review this fully right now, but the above looks like a
blocker to me. The above must be diagnosed for OpenMP, so taking it away
rather than say conditionalizing it on whether it is in an OpenMP or OpenACC
construct is just wrong.
As a general feeling of the patch there are many other spots that change
unconditionally code used by OpenMP and OpenACC and it isn't clear it
doesn't affect OpenMP code generation. If some change is useful even for
OpenMP and Fortran, then I'd certainly expect it to be done only in omp-low
or omp-expand, before that it better should be represented how the standard
mandates.
Jakub
