On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:24, Kwok Cheung Yeung <k...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> On 24/06/2020 6:29 pm, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > Hi Kwok,
> >
> > the TODO is fixed by the attached patch; I would be happy if you could
> > handle
> > this patch,
> > e.g. together with your patch – or as follow up.
> >
> > (Lightly tested only, i.e. it fixes the ICE but I did not
> > do a full testsuite run. But I regard it as obvious.)
>
> Hello
>
> I have committed your patch along with the testcase as 'obvious'. I have
> confirmed that it does not regress the gfortran and libgomp testsuites.
>
Hi,
I've noticed a regression since your commit, on arm aarch64 and x86:
for instance on arm-linux-gnueabi:
PASS: gfortran.dg/gomp/combined-if.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/gomp/combined-if.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times
omplower "(?n)#pragma omp target.* if\\(" 9
gfortran.dg/gomp/combined-if.f90 -O : pattern found 4 times
FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/combined-if.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times
omplower "(?n)#pragma omp simd.* if\\(" 7
PASS: gfortran.dg/gomp/combined-if.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times
omplower "(?n)#pragma omp parallel.* if\\(" 6
Not sure why you didn't see it?
Thanks,
Christophe
> Kwok
>
