On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 05:42:32PM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> >> Jakub, before your Fortran OpenMP 4 target changes, Ilmir had written the
> >> test case gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/map-1.f90 (based on his
> >> interpretation and implementation of OpenMP 4 target), which I have now
> >> amended with XFAILs and changed error messages -- anything in there that
> >> you'd like to see addressed for Fortran OpenMP 4 target?
> >
> >> + !$omp target map(j(5:4)) ! { dg-error "Lower bound of OpenMP array
> >> section in greater than upper" "" { xfail *-*-* } }
> >> + !$omp end target
> >
> > I think this isn't an error in Fortran, if low bound is above upper bound,
> > then it is considered a zero size array section. Though supposedly for
> > depend clause we might want to diagnose that.
> >
> >> + !$omp target map(aas) ! { dg-error "The upper bound in the last
> >> dimension must appear" "" { xfail *-*-* } }
> >> + !$omp end target
> >
> > Assumed-size in map without array section would be indeed nice thing to
> > diagnose.
> >
> >> + !$omp target map(tt%i) ! { dg-error "Syntax error in OpenMP variable
> >> list" }
> >> + !$omp end target ! { dg-bogus "Unexpected !\\\$OMP END TARGET
> >> statement" "" { xfail *-*-* } }
> >
> > Right now the parsing of !$omp directives in case of parsing error rejects
> > the whole directive, perhaps it should be reconsidered unless it is a fatal
> > error from which there is no easy way out.
> >
> >> + !$omp target map(tt%j(1)) ! { dg-bogus "Syntax error in OpenMP variable
> >> list" "" { xfail *-*-* } }
> >> + !$omp end target ! { dg-bogus "Unexpected !\\\$OMP END TARGET
> >> statement" "" { xfail *-*-* } }
> >> +
> >> + !$omp target map(tt%j(1:)) ! { dg-bogus "Syntax error in OpenMP
> >> variable list" "" { xfail *-*-* } }
> >> + !$omp end target ! { dg-bogus "Unexpected !\\\$OMP END TARGET
> >> statement" "" { xfail *-*-* } }
> >
> > These two are pending resolution on omp-lang, I had exchanged a few mails
> > about it, I think we shouldn't support those for consistency with the C/C++
> > support, where tt.j[1] or tt.j[1:] and similar is explicitly invalid.
>
> Jakub, should I drop the map-1.f90 test?
Not the whole testcase, just the problematic parts (or, just remove the
dg-error/xfail or replace dg-bogus xfail with dg-error), for the j(5:4)
and tt%j(1)/tt%j(1:) cases?
Jakub
