> -----Original Message----- > From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:39 PM > To: Jakub Jelinek > Cc: Jason Merrill; gcc-patches; Iyer, Balaji V > Subject: Re: PING: Fwd: Re: [patch] implement Cilk Plus simd loops on trunk > > On 11/14/13 10:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > [Balaji, see below for question.] > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:49:41AM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > >> + case OMP_PARALLEL: > >> + case OMP_TASK: > >> + case OMP_FOR: > >> + case OMP_SIMD: > >> + case OMP_SECTIONS: > >> + case OMP_SINGLE: > >> + case OMP_SECTION: > >> + case OMP_MASTER: > >> + case OMP_ORDERED: > >> + case OMP_CRITICAL: > >> + case OMP_ATOMIC: > >> + case OMP_ATOMIC_READ: > >> + case OMP_ATOMIC_CAPTURE_OLD: > >> + case OMP_ATOMIC_CAPTURE_NEW: > > > > This is only a subset of OpenMP statements. > > You are missing OMP_DISTRIBUTE, OMP_TARGET, OMP_TARGET_DATA, > > OMP_TEAMS, OMP_TARGET_UPDATE, OMP_TASKGROUP. > > Also, CALL_EXPRs to > > case BUILT_IN_GOMP_BARRIER: > > case BUILT_IN_GOMP_CANCEL: > > case BUILT_IN_GOMP_CANCELLATION_POINT: > > case BUILT_IN_GOMP_TASKYIELD: > > case BUILT_IN_GOMP_TASKWAIT: > > are OpenMP statements. For OpenMP we diagnose this later on, in > > check_omp_nesting_restrictions in omp-low.c, wouldn't it be better to > > handle it there too? > > Woah, indeed. I removed all of this section in favor of the error in > check_omp_nesting_restriction, and adjusted the testcase error accordingly. > > > > >> + error_at (EXPR_LOCATION (*tp), "OpenMP statements are not > allowed " > >> + "within loops annotated with #pragma simd"); > >> + *valid = false; > >> + *walk_subtrees = 0; > >> + break; > >> --- a/gcc/c-family/c-pragma.c > >> +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-pragma.c > >> @@ -1380,6 +1380,12 @@ init_pragma (void) > >> omp_pragmas_simd[i].id, true, true); > >> } > >> > >> + if (flag_enable_cilkplus && !flag_preprocess_only) > >> + { > >> + cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, NULL, "simd", > >> + PRAGMA_CILK_SIMD, true, false); > >> + } > > > > Unnecessary {}s (or do you expect further cilk+ pragmas? > > I sincerely hope not :). Fixed. > > > > >> @@ -11543,6 +11553,9 @@ c_parser_omp_for_loop (location_t loc, > c_parser *parser, enum tree_code code, > >> case LT_EXPR: > >> case LE_EXPR: > >> break; > >> + case NE_EXPR: > >> + if (code == CILK_SIMD) > >> + break; > > > > Add /* FALLTHRU */ here? > > Done. > > > > >> default: > >> /* Can't be cond = error_mark_node, because we want to > preserve > >> the location until c_finish_omp_for. */ > > > >> + else if (c_kind == PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_REDUCTION) > >> + /* Use the OMP 4.0 equivalent function. */ > >> + clauses = cp_parser_omp_clause_reduction (parser, clauses); > > > > I'm surprised here, does the Cilk+ reduction clause really want to > > grok OpenMP user defined reductions etc.? > > Hmm, I doubt it. Balaji, OpenMP user defined reductions are not allowed for > Cilk Plus, right? >
Yes, OpenMP user defined reductions are allowed. > If so, Jakub what do you suggest, disallowing parsing of user defined > reductions in cp_parser_omp_clause_reduction() when some Cilk Plus flag, > or did you have something else in mind? > > How does this look (fixed all the above with the exception of user-defined > reductions, as well as Joseph's suggestion)? > > Aldy
