Hi!
in_reduction and task_reduction clauses need to be handled the same as
reduction clause.
Fixed thusly, tested on x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
2019-10-14 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR c++/92084
* semantics.c (handle_omp_array_sections_1): Temporarily disable
-fstrong-eval-order also for in_reduction and task_reduction clauses.
* g++.dg/gomp/pr92084.C: New test.
--- gcc/cp/semantics.c.jj 2019-10-11 09:35:14.415498936 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/semantics.c 2019-10-14 10:11:32.396100623 +0200
@@ -5068,7 +5068,9 @@ handle_omp_array_sections_1 (tree c, tre
saying how many times the side-effects are evaluated is unspecified,
makes int *a, *b; ... reduction(+:a[a = b, 3:10]) really unspecified. */
warning_sentinel s (flag_strong_eval_order,
- OMP_CLAUSE_CODE (c) == OMP_CLAUSE_REDUCTION);
+ OMP_CLAUSE_CODE (c) == OMP_CLAUSE_REDUCTION
+ || OMP_CLAUSE_CODE (c) == OMP_CLAUSE_IN_REDUCTION
+ || OMP_CLAUSE_CODE (c) == OMP_CLAUSE_TASK_REDUCTION);
ret = grok_array_decl (OMP_CLAUSE_LOCATION (c), ret, low_bound, false);
return ret;
}
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gomp/pr92084.C.jj 2019-10-14 10:13:38.210217838
+0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gomp/pr92084.C 2019-10-14 10:13:30.602331688 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+// PR c++/92084
+
+void bar (int *, int);
+int baz (int);
+
+void
+foo (int *x, int y)
+{
+#pragma omp taskgroup task_reduction (*: x[baz (y)])
+ bar (x, baz (y));
+}
Jakub
