On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 06:37:22PM +0000, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> @@ -3765,6 +3777,93 @@
> return attr_name;
> }
>
> +/* Parses the vector attribute of SIMD enabled functions in Cilk Plus.
> + VEC_TOKEN is the "vector" token that is replaced with "simd" and
> + pushed into the token list.
> + Syntax:
> + vector
> + vector (<vector attributes>). */
> +
> +static void
> +c_parser_cilk_simd_fn_vector_attrs (c_parser *parser, c_token vec_token)
> +{
> + gcc_assert (simple_cst_equal (vec_token.value,
> + get_identifier ("vector")) == 1);
> + int paren_scope = 0;
> + /* Replace the vector keyword with SIMD. */
> + vec_token.value = get_identifier ("simd");
> + vec_safe_push (parser->cilk_simd_fn_tokens, vec_token);
So, why don't you just push the "vector" token as is?
> + if (simple_cst_equal (value, get_identifier ("mask")) == 1)
> + token->value = get_identifier ("inbranch");
> + else if (simple_cst_equal (value, get_identifier ("nomask")) == 1)
> + token->value = get_identifier ("notinbranch");
> + else if (simple_cst_equal (value,
> + get_identifier ("vectorlength")) == 1)
> + {
> + if (!c_parser_cilk_clause_vectorlength (parser, NULL, true))
> + {
> + c_parser_skip_until_found (parser, CPP_CLOSE_PAREN, NULL);
> + return;
> + }
> + else
> + continue;
> + }
This I don't like at all, tweaking tokens is just too ugly.
I'd prefer if you just keep the tokens as is, and simply:
> while (parser->tokens_avail > 3)
> {
> @@ -12792,11 +12922,22 @@
Allow "vector" (and I think you need to also allow __vector and __vector__,
don't you?) here too, for flag_enable_cilkplus.
BTW, can you as a followup rename flag_enable_cilkplus to flag_cilkplus?
> c_parser_consume_token (parser);
> parser->in_pragma = true;
>
> - tree c = c_parser_omp_all_clauses (parser,
> OMP_DECLARE_SIMD_CLAUSE_MASK,
> - "#pragma omp declare simd");
> + tree c = NULL_TREE;
> + if (is_cilkplus_cilk_simd_fn)
> + c = c_parser_omp_all_clauses (parser, OMP_DECLARE_SIMD_CLAUSE_MASK,
> + "SIMD-enabled functions attribute");
You'd use different mask here that would not include the clauses Cilk+
doesn't have (inbranch/notinbranch/safelen) and include the one Cilk+ has,
and make sure you handle parsing those. And just parsing of say mask clause
tokens would create OMP_CLAUSE_INBRANCH clause.
BTW, I don't see how you handle the Cilk+ specific enhancement to linear
clause, that you can refer to some parameter instead. The question is how
would c_parser_omp_clause_linear know whether it is now parsing OpenMP
clauses or Cilk+ vector attribute tokens. Plus there are no testcases for
that (though, it will likely need some further omp-low.c and vectorizer
changes), but at least Aldy has reserved a bit and created macro for it
on the clause.
Jakub
