Hi Julian!
On 2019-12-17T22:02:27-0800, Julian Brown <jul...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> --- a/libgomp/oacc-mem.c
> +++ b/libgomp/oacc-mem.c
(Unhelpful diff trimmed.)
> +/* Some types of (pointer) variables use several consecutive mappings, which
> + must be treated as a group for enter/exit data directives. This function
> + returns the last mapping in such a group (inclusive), or POS for singleton
> + mappings. */
> +static int
> +find_group_last (int pos, size_t mapnum, unsigned short *kinds)
> {
> + unsigned char kind0 = kinds[pos] & 0xff;
> + int first_pos = pos, last_pos = pos;
> + if (kind0 == GOMP_MAP_TO_PSET)
> {
> + while (pos + 1 < mapnum && (kinds[pos + 1] & 0xff) == GOMP_MAP_POINTER)
> + last_pos = ++pos;
> + /* We expect at least one GOMP_MAP_POINTER after a GOMP_MAP_TO_PSET.
> */
> + assert (last_pos > first_pos);
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + /* GOMP_MAP_ALWAYS_POINTER can only appear directly after some other
> + mapping. */
> + if (pos + 1 < mapnum
> + && (kinds[pos + 1] & 0xff) == GOMP_MAP_ALWAYS_POINTER)
> + return pos + 1;
What is the case that a 'GOMP_MAP_ALWAYS_POINTER' would be generated for
OpenACC code? Putting an 'assert' here, it never triggers, given the
current set of libgomp test cases. If there is such a case, we should
add a test case, otherwise, I suggest we do put an 'assert' here (whilst
leaving in the supposedly correct code, if you'd like), to document that
this not currently expected, and thus not tested?
> +
> + /* We can have one or several GOMP_MAP_POINTER mappings after a to/from
> + (etc.) mapping. */
> + while (pos + 1 < mapnum && (kinds[pos + 1] & 0xff) == GOMP_MAP_POINTER)
> + last_pos = ++pos;
> }
> + return last_pos;
> }
Grüße
Thomas
-----------------
Mentor Graphics (Deutschland) GmbH, Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München / Germany
Registergericht München HRB 106955, Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Alexander
Walter
