[Resend as it was initially HTML - sorry for those who are CCed.]
Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
OpenACC 1.0 fortran FE support -- matching and resolving.
+gfc_match_oacc_cache (void)
+{
...
+ if (gfc_current_state() != COMP_DO)
{
- gfc_free_omp_clauses (c);
+ gfc_error ("ACC CACHE directive must be inside of loop %C");
+ gfc_free_omp_clauses(c);
return MATCH_ERROR;
}
Shouldn't it also be supported in DO CONCURRENT? The following is
currently rejected:
real :: b
!$acc loop
outer: do concurrent(i=1:5)
!$acc cache(b)
end do outer
end
(Side question: Is !$acc permitted in DO ... WHILE? If so, you need to
also add EXEC_DO_WHILE.)
+static void
+resolve_oacc_positive_int_expr (gfc_expr *expr, const char *clause)
+{
+ resolve_oacc_scalar_int_expr (expr, clause);
+ if (expr->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT && expr->ts.type == BT_INTEGER
+ && expr->value.integer->_mp_size <= 0)
+ gfc_warning ("INTEGER expression of %s clause at %L must be positive",
+ clause, &expr->where);
You shouldn't access internal variables of mpz_t. Use mpz_sgn() instead:
https://gmplib.org/manual/Integer-Comparisons.html
+ if ((sym->ts.type == BT_ASSUMED && sym->attr.pointer)
+ || (sym->ts.type == BT_ASSUMED && CLASS_DATA (sym)
+ && CLASS_DATA (sym)->attr.pointer))
The second line should use BT_CLASS instead of BT_ASSUMED.
+ gfc_error ("POINTER object '%s' of polymorphic type in %s clause at %L",
+ sym->name, name, &loc);
+ if ((sym->ts.type == BT_ASSUMED && sym->attr.cray_pointer)
+ || (sym->ts.type == BT_ASSUMED && CLASS_DATA (sym)
+ && CLASS_DATA (sym)->attr.cray_pointer))
Ditto.
+ gfc_error ("Cray pointer object of polymorphic type '%s' in %s clause at
%L",
+ sym->name, name, &loc);
+ if ((sym->ts.type == BT_ASSUMED && sym->attr.cray_pointee)
+ || (sym->ts.type == BT_ASSUMED && CLASS_DATA (sym)
+ && CLASS_DATA (sym)->attr.cray_pointee))
+ gfc_error ("Cray pointee object of polymorphic type '%s' in %s clause at
%L",
+ sym->name, name, &loc);
Ditto.
+static void
+check_array_not_assumed (gfc_symbol *sym, locus loc, const char *name)
+{
+ if (sym->as && sym->as->type == AS_ASSUMED_SIZE)
+ gfc_error ("Assumed size array '%s' in %s clause at %L",
+ sym->name, name, &loc);
+ if (sym->as && sym->as->type == AS_ASSUMED_SHAPE)
+ gfc_error ("Assumed shape array '%s' in %s clause at %L",
+ sym->name, name, &loc);
+ if (sym->as && sym->as->type == AS_ASSUMED_RANK)
+ gfc_error ("Assumed rank array '%s' in %s clause at %L",
+ sym->name, name, &loc);
+}
Actually, I wonder whether one needs to reject assumed-shape: I don't
know what OpenACC says, but my impression is that the problem is that
those can be noncontiguous. However, if they are marked as contiguous
["attr.contiguous"] …
On the other hand, your code seems to permit deferred-shape arrays like:
real, pointer :: b(:)
!$acc data copyin(b)
end
The problem is that pointers to deferred-shape arrays can be
noncontiguous. But deferred-shape array are always contiguous when they
are either attr.allocatable or have the "attr.contiguous" attribute.
+ if ((sym->ts.type == BT_ASSUMED && sym->attr.allocatable)
+ || (sym->ts.type == BT_ASSUMED && CLASS_DATA (sym)
+ && CLASS_DATA (sym)->attr.allocatable))
As above: BT_CLASS in the second line.
+resolve_oacc_deviceptr_clause (gfc_symbol *sym, locus loc, const char *name)
+{
+ if (sym->ts.type == BT_DERIVED && sym->attr.allocatable)
+ gfc_error ("ALLOCATABLE object '%s' of derived type in %s clause at %L",
+ sym->name, name, &loc);
+ if ((sym->ts.type == BT_ASSUMED && sym->attr.allocatable)
+ || (sym->ts.type == BT_ASSUMED && CLASS_DATA (sym)
+ && CLASS_DATA (sym)->attr.allocatable))
Ditto.
+ gfc_error ("ALLOCATABLE object '%s' of polymorphic type "
+ "in %s clause at %L", sym->name, name, &loc);
+ if (sym->attr.pointer)
+ gfc_error ("POINTER object '%s' in %s clause at %L",
+ sym->name, name, &loc);
Shouldn't you also add
|| (sym->ts.type == BT_CLASS && CLASS_DATA (sym) + && CLASS_DATA
(sym)->attr.class_pointer)
here?
+ case OMP_LIST_USE_DEVICE:
+ if (n->sym->attr.allocatable)
+ gfc_error ("ALLOCATABLE object '%s' in %s clause at %L",
+ n->sym->name, name, &code->loc);
+ if (n->sym->attr.pointer)
+ gfc_error ("POINTER object '%s' in %s clause at %L",
+ n->sym->name, name, &code->loc);
Do you also need to handle BT_CLASS here for allocatable/pointer?
Otherwise, it looks good to me.
Tobias
