[flang][OpenMP] Handle REQUIRES ADMO in lowering #144362
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -1719,6 +1719,22 @@ void OmpStructureChecker::Leave(const parser::OpenMPDepobjConstruct &x) { | |
| void OmpStructureChecker::Enter(const parser::OpenMPRequiresConstruct &x) { | ||
| const auto &dir{std::get<parser::Verbatim>(x.t)}; | ||
| PushContextAndClauseSets(dir.source, llvm::omp::Directive::OMPD_requires); | ||
|
|
||
| if (visitedAtomicSource_.empty()) { | ||
| return; | ||
| } | ||
| const auto &clauseList{std::get<parser::OmpClauseList>(x.t)}; | ||
| for (const parser::OmpClause &clause : clauseList.v) { | ||
| llvm::omp::Clause id{clause.Id()}; | ||
| if (id == llvm::omp::Clause::OMPC_atomic_default_mem_order) { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Is it allowed to have multiple REQUIRES directives with this clause? I imagine not, at least not in the same scope. There was a problem hiding this comment. Good point. Yes, but they must have the same arguments. I'll add a check for that. There was a problem hiding this comment. We actually already diagnose that. There was a problem hiding this comment. Ahh sorry I should have checked - I just didn't see it in check-omp-structure and assumed. Thanks for having a look. |
||
| parser::MessageFormattedText txt( | ||
| "REQUIRES directive with '%s' clause found lexically after atomic operation without a memory order clause"_err_en_US, | ||
| parser::ToUpperCaseLetters(llvm::omp::getOpenMPClauseName(id))); | ||
| parser::Message message(clause.source, txt); | ||
| message.Attach(visitedAtomicSource_, "Previous atomic construct"_en_US); | ||
| context_.Say(std::move(message)); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| void OmpStructureChecker::Leave(const parser::OpenMPRequiresConstruct &) { | ||
|
|
@@ -4028,6 +4044,9 @@ void OmpStructureChecker::CheckAtomicUpdate( | |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| void OmpStructureChecker::Enter(const parser::OpenMPAtomicConstruct &x) { | ||
| if (visitedAtomicSource_.empty()) | ||
| visitedAtomicSource_ = x.source; | ||
|
|
||
| // All of the following groups have the "exclusive" property, i.e. at | ||
| // most one clause from each group is allowed. | ||
| // The exclusivity-checking code should eventually be unified for all | ||
|
|
||
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't these be caught by semantics and so be unreachable in lowering?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is a gap in the 5.2+ spec. The ATOMIC_DEFAULT_MEM_ORDER was allowed to have "acquire" and "release" as values, yet at the same time it didn't specify the behavior on a construct that doesn't allow these values.
The recommendation from @dreachem was to allow such cases, and simply not apply the ADMO to such constructs. This is effectively applying the default memory order (i.e. "relaxed") to them.