[Flang][OpenMP] Add Semantic Checks for Atomic Capture Construct #108516

harishch4 · 2024-09-13T08:42:58Z

This PR adds semantic checks to ensure the atomic capture construct conforms to one of the valid forms:
[capture-stmt, update-stmt], [capture-stmt, write-stmt] or [update-stmt, capture-stmt].

Functions checkForSymbolMatch and checkForSingleVariableOnRHS are moved from flang/lib/Lower/DirectivesCommon.h to flang/Semantics/tools.h for reuse.

llvmbot · 2024-09-13T08:43:28Z

@llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-fir-hlfir
@llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-semantics

@llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-openmp

Author: None (harishch4)

Changes

This PR adds semantic checks to ensure the atomic capture construct conforms to one of the valid forms:
[capture-stmt, update-stmt], [capture-stmt, write-stmt] or [update-stmt, capture-stmt].

Functions checkForSymbolMatch and checkForSingleVariableOnRHS are moved from flang/lib/Lower/DirectivesCommon.h to flang/Semantics/tools.h for reuse.

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108516.diff

7 Files Affected:

(modified) flang/include/flang/Semantics/tools.h (+27)
(modified) flang/lib/Lower/DirectivesCommon.h (+3-31)
(modified) flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp (+70-6)
(modified) flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.h (+1)
(modified) flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/omp-atomic-assignment-stmt.f90 (+40)
(modified) flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/requires-atomic01.f90 (+3-3)
(modified) flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/requires-atomic02.f90 (+3-3)

diff --git a/flang/include/flang/Semantics/tools.h b/flang/include/flang/Semantics/tools.h
index 15c02ecc0058cc..b60514b991b727 100644
--- a/flang/include/flang/Semantics/tools.h
+++ b/flang/include/flang/Semantics/tools.h
@@ -736,5 +736,32 @@ std::string GetCommonBlockObjectName(const Symbol &, bool underscoring);
 // Check for ambiguous USE associations
 bool HadUseError(SemanticsContext &, SourceName at, const Symbol *);
 
+/// Checks if the assignment statement has a single variable on the RHS.
+inline bool checkForSingleVariableOnRHS(
+    const Fortran::parser::AssignmentStmt &assignmentStmt) {
+  const Fortran::parser::Expr &expr{
+      std::get<Fortran::parser::Expr>(assignmentStmt.t)};
+  const Fortran::common::Indirection<Fortran::parser::Designator> *designator =
+      std::get_if<Fortran::common::Indirection<Fortran::parser::Designator>>(
+          &expr.u);
+  return designator != nullptr;
+}
+
+/// Checks if the symbol on the LHS of the assignment statement is present in
+/// the RHS expression.
+inline bool checkForSymbolMatch(
+    const Fortran::parser::AssignmentStmt &assignmentStmt) {
+  const auto &var{std::get<Fortran::parser::Variable>(assignmentStmt.t)};
+  const auto &expr{std::get<Fortran::parser::Expr>(assignmentStmt.t)};
+  const auto *e{Fortran::semantics::GetExpr(expr)};
+  const auto *v{Fortran::semantics::GetExpr(var)};
+  auto varSyms{Fortran::evaluate::GetSymbolVector(*v)};
+  const Fortran::semantics::Symbol &varSymbol{*varSyms.front()};
+  for (const Fortran::semantics::Symbol &symbol :
+      Fortran::evaluate::GetSymbolVector(*e))
+    if (varSymbol == symbol)
+      return true;
+  return false;
+}
 } // namespace Fortran::semantics
 #endif // FORTRAN_SEMANTICS_TOOLS_H_
diff --git a/flang/lib/Lower/DirectivesCommon.h b/flang/lib/Lower/DirectivesCommon.h
index d2060e77ce5305..a32f0b287e049a 100644
--- a/flang/lib/Lower/DirectivesCommon.h
+++ b/flang/lib/Lower/DirectivesCommon.h
@@ -74,34 +74,6 @@ struct AddrAndBoundsInfo {
   }
 };
 
-/// Checks if the assignment statement has a single variable on the RHS.
-static inline bool checkForSingleVariableOnRHS(
-    const Fortran::parser::AssignmentStmt &assignmentStmt) {
-  const Fortran::parser::Expr &expr{
-      std::get<Fortran::parser::Expr>(assignmentStmt.t)};
-  const Fortran::common::Indirection<Fortran::parser::Designator> *designator =
-      std::get_if<Fortran::common::Indirection<Fortran::parser::Designator>>(
-          &expr.u);
-  return designator != nullptr;
-}
-
-/// Checks if the symbol on the LHS of the assignment statement is present in
-/// the RHS expression.
-static inline bool
-checkForSymbolMatch(const Fortran::parser::AssignmentStmt &assignmentStmt) {
-  const auto &var{std::get<Fortran::parser::Variable>(assignmentStmt.t)};
-  const auto &expr{std::get<Fortran::parser::Expr>(assignmentStmt.t)};
-  const auto *e{Fortran::semantics::GetExpr(expr)};
-  const auto *v{Fortran::semantics::GetExpr(var)};
-  auto varSyms{Fortran::evaluate::GetSymbolVector(*v)};
-  const Fortran::semantics::Symbol &varSymbol{*varSyms.front()};
-  for (const Fortran::semantics::Symbol &symbol :
-       Fortran::evaluate::GetSymbolVector(*e))
-    if (varSymbol == symbol)
-      return true;
-  return false;
-}
-
 /// Populates \p hint and \p memoryOrder with appropriate clause information
 /// if present on atomic construct.
 static inline void genOmpAtomicHintAndMemoryOrderClauses(
@@ -537,7 +509,7 @@ void genOmpAccAtomicCapture(Fortran::lower::AbstractConverter &converter,
   stmt2LHSArg = fir::getBase(converter.genExprAddr(assign2.lhs, stmtCtx));
 
   // Operation specific RHS evaluations
-  if (checkForSingleVariableOnRHS(stmt1)) {
+  if (Fortran::semantics::checkForSingleVariableOnRHS(stmt1)) {
     // Atomic capture construct is of the form [capture-stmt, update-stmt] or
     // of the form [capture-stmt, write-stmt]
     stmt1RHSArg = fir::getBase(converter.genExprAddr(assign1.rhs, stmtCtx));
@@ -573,8 +545,8 @@ void genOmpAccAtomicCapture(Fortran::lower::AbstractConverter &converter,
   firOpBuilder.createBlock(&(atomicCaptureOp->getRegion(0)));
   mlir::Block &block = atomicCaptureOp->getRegion(0).back();
   firOpBuilder.setInsertionPointToStart(&block);
-  if (checkForSingleVariableOnRHS(stmt1)) {
-    if (checkForSymbolMatch(stmt2)) {
+  if (Fortran::semantics::checkForSingleVariableOnRHS(stmt1)) {
+    if (Fortran::semantics::checkForSymbolMatch(stmt2)) {
       // Atomic capture construct is of the form [capture-stmt, update-stmt]
       const Fortran::semantics::SomeExpr &fromExpr =
           *Fortran::semantics::GetExpr(stmt1Expr);
diff --git a/flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp b/flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp
index 643b713b32e29d..662e6c10bd4e03 100644
--- a/flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp
+++ b/flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp
@@ -1977,6 +1977,70 @@ void OmpStructureChecker::CheckAtomicUpdateStmt(
   ErrIfAllocatableVariable(var);
 }
 
+void OmpStructureChecker::CheckAtomicCaptureConstruct(
+    const parser::OmpAtomicCapture &atomicCaptureConstruct) {
+  const Fortran::parser::AssignmentStmt &stmt1 =
+      std::get<Fortran::parser::OmpAtomicCapture::Stmt1>(
+          atomicCaptureConstruct.t)
+          .v.statement;
+  const auto &stmt1Var{std::get<Fortran::parser::Variable>(stmt1.t)};
+  const auto &stmt1Expr{std::get<Fortran::parser::Expr>(stmt1.t)};
+
+  const Fortran::parser::AssignmentStmt &stmt2 =
+      std::get<Fortran::parser::OmpAtomicCapture::Stmt2>(
+          atomicCaptureConstruct.t)
+          .v.statement;
+  const auto &stmt2Var{std::get<Fortran::parser::Variable>(stmt2.t)};
+  const auto &stmt2Expr{std::get<Fortran::parser::Expr>(stmt2.t)};
+
+  if (Fortran::semantics::checkForSingleVariableOnRHS(stmt1)) {
+    CheckAtomicCaptureStmt(stmt1);
+    if (Fortran::semantics::checkForSymbolMatch(stmt2)) {
+      // Atomic capture construct is of the form [capture-stmt, update-stmt]
+      CheckAtomicUpdateStmt(stmt2);
+    } else {
+      // Atomic capture construct is of the form [capture-stmt, write-stmt]
+      CheckAtomicWriteStmt(stmt2);
+    }
+    // Variable captured in stmt1 should be assigned in stmt2
+    const auto *e{GetExpr(context_, stmt1Expr)};
+    const auto *v{GetExpr(context_, stmt2Var)};
+    if (e && v) {
+      const Symbol &stmt2VarSymbol = evaluate::GetSymbolVector(*v).front();
+      const Symbol &stmt1ExprSymbol = evaluate::GetSymbolVector(*e).front();
+      if (stmt2VarSymbol != stmt1ExprSymbol)
+        context_.Say(stmt1Expr.source,
+            "Captured variable %s "
+            "expected to be assigned in statement 2 of "
+            "atomic capture construct"_err_en_US,
+            stmt1ExprSymbol.name().ToString());
+    }
+  } else if (Fortran::semantics::checkForSymbolMatch(stmt1) &&
+      Fortran::semantics::checkForSingleVariableOnRHS(stmt2)) {
+    // Atomic capture construct is of the form [update-stmt, capture-stmt]
+    CheckAtomicUpdateStmt(stmt1);
+    CheckAtomicCaptureStmt(stmt2);
+    // Variable updated in stmt1 should be captured in stmt2
+    const auto *e{GetExpr(context_, stmt2Expr)};
+    const auto *v{GetExpr(context_, stmt1Var)};
+    if (e && v) {
+      const Symbol &stmt1VarSymbol = evaluate::GetSymbolVector(*v).front();
+      const Symbol &stmt2ExprSymbol = evaluate::GetSymbolVector(*e).front();
+      if (stmt1VarSymbol != stmt2ExprSymbol)
+        context_.Say(stmt1Var.GetSource(),
+            "Updated variable %s "
+            "expected to be captured in statement 2 of "
+            "atomic capture construct"_err_en_US,
+            stmt1Var.GetSource().ToString());
+    }
+  } else {
+    context_.Say(stmt1Expr.source,
+        "Invalid atomic capture construct statements. "
+        "Expected one of [update-stmt, capture-stmt], "
+        "[capture-stmt, update-stmt], or [capture-stmt, write-stmt]"_err_en_US);
+  }
+}
+
 void OmpStructureChecker::CheckAtomicMemoryOrderClause(
     const parser::OmpAtomicClauseList *leftHandClauseList,
     const parser::OmpAtomicClauseList *rightHandClauseList) {
@@ -2060,15 +2124,15 @@ void OmpStructureChecker::Enter(const parser::OpenMPAtomicConstruct &x) {
                     atomicWrite.t)
                     .statement);
           },
-          [&](const auto &atomicConstruct) {
-            const auto &dir{std::get<parser::Verbatim>(atomicConstruct.t)};
+          [&](const parser::OmpAtomicCapture &atomicCapture) {
+            const auto &dir{std::get<parser::Verbatim>(atomicCapture.t)};
             PushContextAndClauseSets(
                 dir.source, llvm::omp::Directive::OMPD_atomic);
-            CheckAtomicMemoryOrderClause(&std::get<0>(atomicConstruct.t),
-                &std::get<2>(atomicConstruct.t));
+            CheckAtomicMemoryOrderClause(
+                &std::get<0>(atomicCapture.t), &std::get<2>(atomicCapture.t));
             CheckHintClause<const parser::OmpAtomicClauseList>(
-                &std::get<0>(atomicConstruct.t),
-                &std::get<2>(atomicConstruct.t));
+                &std::get<0>(atomicCapture.t), &std::get<2>(atomicCapture.t));
+            CheckAtomicCaptureConstruct(atomicCapture);
           },
       },
       x.u);
diff --git a/flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.h b/flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.h
index 2cc1a78068f540..8bfd4d594b028e 100644
--- a/flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.h
+++ b/flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.h
@@ -193,6 +193,7 @@ class OmpStructureChecker
   void CheckAtomicUpdateStmt(const parser::AssignmentStmt &);
   void CheckAtomicCaptureStmt(const parser::AssignmentStmt &);
   void CheckAtomicWriteStmt(const parser::AssignmentStmt &);
+  void CheckAtomicCaptureConstruct(const parser::OmpAtomicCapture &);
   void CheckAtomicConstructStructure(const parser::OpenMPAtomicConstruct &);
   void CheckDistLinear(const parser::OpenMPLoopConstruct &x);
   void CheckSIMDNest(const parser::OpenMPConstruct &x);
diff --git a/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/omp-atomic-assignment-stmt.f90 b/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/omp-atomic-assignment-stmt.f90
index a346056dee383b..09921944e7fc06 100644
--- a/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/omp-atomic-assignment-stmt.f90
+++ b/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/omp-atomic-assignment-stmt.f90
@@ -84,4 +84,44 @@ program sample
     !$omp atomic write
     !ERROR: Expected scalar variable on the LHS of atomic assignment statement
         a = x
+
+    !$omp atomic capture
+        v = x
+        x = x + 1
+    !$omp end atomic
+
+    !$omp atomic release capture
+        v = x
+    !ERROR: Atomic update statement should be of form `x = x operator expr` OR `x = expr operator x`
+        x = b + (x*1)
+    !$omp end atomic
+
+    !$omp atomic capture hint(0)
+        v = x
+        x = 1
+    !$omp end atomic
+
+    !$omp atomic capture
+    !ERROR: Captured variable x expected to be assigned in statement 2 of atomic capture construct
+        v = x
+        b = b + 1
+    !$omp end atomic
+
+    !$omp atomic capture
+    !ERROR: Captured variable x expected to be assigned in statement 2 of atomic capture construct
+        v = x
+        b = 10
+    !$omp end atomic
+
+    !$omp atomic capture
+    !ERROR: Updated variable x expected to be captured in statement 2 of atomic capture construct
+        x = x + 10
+        v = b
+    !$omp end atomic
+
+    !$omp atomic capture
+    !ERROR: Invalid atomic capture construct statements. Expected one of [update-stmt, capture-stmt], [capture-stmt, update-stmt], or [capture-stmt, write-stmt]
+        v = 1
+        x = 4
+    !$omp end atomic
 end program
diff --git a/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/requires-atomic01.f90 b/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/requires-atomic01.f90
index b39c9cdcc0bb33..cb7b1bc1ac52ab 100644
--- a/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/requires-atomic01.f90
+++ b/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/requires-atomic01.f90
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ program requires
   ! CHECK: OmpMemoryOrderClause -> OmpClause -> SeqCst
   !$omp atomic capture
   i = j
-  i = j
+  j = j + 1
   !$omp end atomic
 
   ! CHECK-LABEL: OpenMPAtomicConstruct -> OmpAtomicCapture
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ program requires
   ! CHECK: OmpMemoryOrderClause -> OmpClause -> Relaxed
   !$omp atomic relaxed capture
   i = j
-  i = j
+  j = j + 1
   !$omp end atomic
 
   ! CHECK-LABEL: OpenMPAtomicConstruct -> OmpAtomicCapture
@@ -104,6 +104,6 @@ program requires
   ! CHECK: OmpMemoryOrderClause -> OmpClause -> Relaxed
   !$omp atomic capture relaxed
   i = j
-  i = j
+  j = j + 1
   !$omp end atomic
 end program requires
diff --git a/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/requires-atomic02.f90 b/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/requires-atomic02.f90
index 3af83970e7927a..5a4249794f7b50 100644
--- a/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/requires-atomic02.f90
+++ b/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/requires-atomic02.f90
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ program requires
   ! CHECK: OmpMemoryOrderClause -> OmpClause -> AcqRel
   !$omp atomic capture
   i = j
-  i = j
+  j = j + 1
   !$omp end atomic
 
   ! CHECK-LABEL: OpenMPAtomicConstruct -> OmpAtomicCapture
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ program requires
   ! CHECK: OmpMemoryOrderClause -> OmpClause -> Relaxed
   !$omp atomic relaxed capture
   i = j
-  i = j
+  j = j + 1
   !$omp end atomic
 
   ! CHECK-LABEL: OpenMPAtomicConstruct -> OmpAtomicCapture
@@ -104,6 +104,6 @@ program requires
   ! CHECK: OmpMemoryOrderClause -> OmpClause -> Relaxed
   !$omp atomic capture relaxed
   i = j
-  i = j
+  j = j + 1
   !$omp end atomic
 end program requires

tblah

The 5.2 standard also appears to allow a conditional update statement as well as write or update. Is that handled here?

I am looking at section 4.3.1.3 page 83

harishch4 · 2024-09-17T08:31:59Z

The 5.2 standard also appears to allow a conditional update statement as well as write or update. Is that handled here?

I am looking at section 4.3.1.3 page 83

No, this patch is based on the 5.0 standard. AFAIK flang-new doesn't support compare clause(5.1) fully yet. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

tblah · 2024-09-17T09:30:52Z

No, this patch is based on the 5.0 standard. AFAIK flang-new doesn't support compare clause(5.1) fully yet. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If we can parse it then it is worth getting semantics right too. Otherwise adding a TODO in the code is okay.

harishch4 · 2024-09-17T10:00:08Z

No, this patch is based on the 5.0 standard. AFAIK flang-new doesn't support compare clause(5.1) fully yet. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If we can parse it then it is worth getting semantics right too. Otherwise adding a TODO in the code is okay.

Missing parser support as well, added a TODO for now.

tblah

Thanks for the change. This LGTM but please wait for another reviewer

kiranchandramohan · 2024-09-18T11:29:30Z

flang/include/flang/Semantics/tools.h

+  for (const Fortran::semantics::Symbol &symbol :
+      Fortran::evaluate::GetSymbolVector(*e))
+    if (varSymbol == symbol)
+      return true;


Please add braces in frontend code.

kiranchandramohan · 2024-09-18T11:29:57Z

flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp

+      if (stmt2VarSymbol != stmt1ExprSymbol)
+        context_.Say(stmt1Expr.source,
+            "Captured variable %s "
+            "expected to be assigned in statement 2 of "
+            "atomic capture construct"_err_en_US,
+            stmt1ExprSymbol.name().ToString());


Please add braces in frontend code.

flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp

Co-authored-by: Kiran Chandramohan <[email protected]>

kiranchandramohan

Errors are not emitted for the following program. Is that expected?

program mn
  type :: tp
    real :: r1
    real :: r2
  end type
  type(tp) :: r
  real :: cr

  integer :: v1(10), ci

  !$omp atomic capture
    cr = r%r1
    r%r2 = r%r2 + 1.0
  !$omp end atomic

  !$omp atomic capture
  ci = v1(2)
  v1(1) = v1(1) + 1
  !$omp end atomic
end

kiranchandramohan · 2024-09-18T15:02:29Z

flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp

+            "Captured variable %s "
+            "expected to be assigned in the second statement of "
+            "atomic capture construct"_err_en_US,
+            stmt1ExprSymbol.name().ToString());


ToString() is not needed.

kiranchandramohan · 2024-09-18T15:02:35Z

flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp

+            "Updated variable %s "
+            "expected to be captured in the second statement of "
+            "atomic capture construct"_err_en_US,
+            stmt1Var.GetSource().ToString());


ToString() is not needed.

kiranchandramohan · 2024-09-18T15:02:50Z

flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/omp-atomic-assignment-stmt.f90

+    !ERROR: Captured variable x expected to be assigned in statement 2 of atomic capture construct
+        v = x
+        b = b + 1
+    !$omp end atomic
+
+    !$omp atomic capture
+    !ERROR: Captured variable x expected to be assigned in statement 2 of atomic capture construct
+        v = x
+        b = 10
+    !$omp end atomic
+
+    !$omp atomic capture
+    !ERROR: Updated variable x expected to be captured in statement 2 of atomic capture construct


ERROR messages have to be updated.

harishch4 · 2024-09-19T08:19:53Z

Errors are not emitted for the following program. Is that expected?

Thanks for the review. This is not expected, it looks like gfortran and ifx compilers are also not throwing an error. https://godbolt.org/z/sbYW9Tv3E

kiranchandramohan · 2024-09-19T08:25:54Z

Errors are not emitted for the following program. Is that expected?

Thanks for the review. This is not expected, it looks like gfortran and ifx compilers are also not throwing an error. https://godbolt.org/z/sbYW9Tv3E

I think it is the use of taking the first symbol from the SymbolVector that is leading to this situation. Could you check the lowering code to see what is used there to match the variable in the atomic update on the RHS?

harishch4 · 2024-09-19T10:17:53Z

Errors are not emitted for the following program. Is that expected?

Thanks for the review. This is not expected, it looks like gfortran and ifx compilers are also not throwing an error. https://godbolt.org/z/sbYW9Tv3E

I think it is the use of taking the first symbol from the SymbolVector that is leading to this situation. Could you check the lowering code to see what is used there to match the variable in the atomic update on the RHS?

Even lowering is generating incorrect code, r1 is being used in atomic update instead of r2. Similarly V1(2) instead of V1(1) : https://godbolt.org/z/j4G18938n

NimishMishra · 2024-09-19T12:06:12Z

I think it is the use of taking the first symbol from the SymbolVector that is leading to this situation. Could you check the lowering code to see what is used there to match the variable in the atomic update on the RHS?

Usage of typed expressions should be able to handle this issue, is it?

harishch4 · 2024-09-23T14:05:08Z

@kiranchandramohan I've added the given test cases and it's working as expected. Could you please review it?

kiranchandramohan

Thanks for the change. Minor comments inline. LGTM.

kiranchandramohan · 2024-09-23T14:50:40Z

flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp

+          "Captured variable %s "
+          "expected to be assigned in the second statement of "


Can we have this in the same line so that the error message can be easily searched for?

For derived type components and array elements specifying them as variable is not probably accurate.
It is probably variable/array element/derived-type component.

Can we have this in the same line so that the error message can be easily searched for?

Wouldn't it violate the column width limit? Another error message is going to 170 columns. if that's okay, I'll change it.

It is alrite if it passes the code formatting checks. I think for strings in "" "", the code formatting is lenient.

Thanks for the clarification. I've updated the error messages.

kiranchandramohan · 2024-09-23T14:55:15Z

flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp

+      context_.Say(stmt1Expr.source,
+          "Captured variable %s "
+          "expected to be assigned in the second statement of "
+          "atomic capture construct"_err_en_US,


Suggested change

"atomic capture construct"_err_en_US,

"ATOMIC CAPTURE construct"_err_en_US,

[Flang][OpenMP] Add Semantic Checks for Atomic Capture Construct

bbd0497

harishch4 requested review from skatrak, tblah, kiranchandramohan, NimishMishra, kiranktp and Thirumalai-Shaktivel September 13, 2024 08:42

llvmbot added flang Flang issues not falling into any other category flang:fir-hlfir flang:openmp flang:semantics labels Sep 13, 2024

tblah reviewed Sep 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

Add TODO

2b42921

tblah approved these changes Sep 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

kiranchandramohan reviewed Sep 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

harishch4 and others added 3 commits September 18, 2024 17:33

Update flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp

3e3eb13

Co-authored-by: Kiran Chandramohan <[email protected]>

Update flang/lib/Semantics/check-omp-structure.cpp

a7e38da

Co-authored-by: Kiran Chandramohan <[email protected]>

Add braces

1a76168

kiranchandramohan reviewed Sep 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

Address review comments

9e7cbf4

kiranchandramohan mentioned this pull request Sep 19, 2024

[Flang][OpenMP] Fix for error in atomic read for different elements of the common symbol #80399 #109265

Merged

replace symbol check with typedExpr check

87aa332

harishch4 requested a review from kiranchandramohan September 19, 2024 12:19

kiranchandramohan approved these changes Sep 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

Refactor error messages

aa4b64f

harishch4 merged commit 81dac7d into llvm:main Sep 25, 2024
8 checks passed

		"Captured variable %s "
		"expected to be assigned in the second statement of "

	"atomic capture construct"_err_en_US,
	"ATOMIC CAPTURE construct"_err_en_US,

[Flang][OpenMP] Add Semantic Checks for Atomic Capture Construct #108516

[Flang][OpenMP] Add Semantic Checks for Atomic Capture Construct #108516

Uh oh!

Conversation

harishch4 commented Sep 13, 2024

Uh oh!

llvmbot commented Sep 13, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tblah left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

harishch4 commented Sep 17, 2024

Uh oh!

tblah commented Sep 17, 2024

Uh oh!

harishch4 commented Sep 17, 2024

Uh oh!

tblah left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kiranchandramohan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

harishch4 commented Sep 19, 2024

Uh oh!

kiranchandramohan commented Sep 19, 2024

Uh oh!

harishch4 commented Sep 19, 2024

Uh oh!

NimishMishra commented Sep 19, 2024

Uh oh!

harishch4 commented Sep 23, 2024

Uh oh!

kiranchandramohan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

llvmbot commented Sep 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading