[cfe-dev] [OMP] Clang fails to handle parallel for + collapse
Alexey Bataev via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Feb 18 03:52:35 PST 2016
Seems to me we've run into some corner case. I'll fix this soon
Best regards,
Alexey Bataev
=============
Software Engineer
Intel Compiler Team
17.02.2016 14:39, Hahnfeld, Jonas пишет:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> I think this reveals another bug: q isn't correctly lastprivate and in the end doesn't hold buf2 + 8.
> This may be related to collapse(2) because it works fine if I remove that clause...
>
> Thanks,
> Jonas
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Alexey
>> Bataev via cfe-dev
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:35 AM
>> To: Samuel Pitoiset; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [OMP] Clang fails to handle parallel for + collapse
>>
>> Hi,
>> Thanks for the report. Problem fixed in r261080
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Alexey Bataev
>> =============
>> Software Engineer
>> Intel Compiler Team
>>
>>
>> 16.02.2016 17:49, Samuel Pitoiset via cfe-dev пишет:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> It seems like Clang fails to create a OMPParallelForDirective object
>>> for the given GCC test sample:
>>> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libgomp/testsuite/libgom
>>> p.c/loop-9.c
>>>
>>> I just tried to dump the AST with clang cc1 -ast-dump -fopenmp
>>> loop-9.c, and the output is:
>>>
>>> TranslationUnitDecl 0x3a53eb0 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc>
>>> |-TypedefDecl 0x3a543c8 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit
>>> __int128_t '__int128'
>>> | `-BuiltinType 0x3a54100 '__int128'
>>> |-TypedefDecl 0x3a54428 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit
>>> __uint128_t 'unsigned __int128'
>>> | `-BuiltinType 0x3a54120 'unsigned __int128'
>>> |-TypedefDecl 0x3a546e8 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit
>>> __NSConstantString 'struct __NSConstantString_tag'
>>> | `-RecordType 0x3a54500 'struct __NSConstantString_tag'
>>> | `-Record 0x3a54478 '__NSConstantString_tag'
>>> |-TypedefDecl 0x3a54778 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit
>>> __builtin_ms_va_list 'char *'
>>> | `-PointerType 0x3a54740 'char *'
>>> | `-BuiltinType 0x3a53f40 'char'
>>> |-TypedefDecl 0x3a54a28 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit
>>> __builtin_va_list 'struct __va_list_tag [1]'
>>> | `-ConstantArrayType 0x3a549d0 'struct __va_list_tag [1]' 1
>>> | `-RecordType 0x3a54850 'struct __va_list_tag'
>>> | `-Record 0x3a547c8 '__va_list_tag'
>>> |-FunctionDecl 0x3aa0780 <tests/gcc-testsuite/libgomp.c/loop-9.c:1:13>
>>> col:13 implicit abort 'void (void) __attribute__((noreturn))' extern
>>> |-FunctionDecl 0x3aa0828 prev 0x3aa0780 <col:1, col:24> col:13 used
>>> abort 'void (void) __attribute__((noreturn))' extern
>>> |-VarDecl 0x3aa0948 <line:3:1, col:15> col:6 used buf 'char [8]' cinit
>>> |`-StringLiteral 0x3aa0a28 <col:15> 'char [8]' lvalue "01234567"
>>> |-VarDecl 0x3aa0a98 <line:4:1, col:16> col:6 used buf2 'char [8]'
>>> |cinit `-StringLiteral 0x3aa0af8 <col:16> 'char [8]' lvalue "23456789"
>>> `-FunctionDecl 0x3aa0bf0 <line:6:1, line:18:1> line:7:1 main 'int (void)'
>>> `-CompoundStmt 0x3aa4fe0 <line:8:1, line:18:1>
>>> |-DeclStmt 0x3aa0dc0 <line:9:3, col:14>
>>> | |-VarDecl 0x3aa0cd8 <col:3, col:9> col:9 used p 'char *'
>>> | `-VarDecl 0x3aa0d48 <col:3, col:13> col:13 used q 'char *'
>>> |-DeclStmt 0x3aa0e68 <line:10:3, col:14>
>>> | `-VarDecl 0x3aa0de8 <col:3, col:13> col:7 used sum 'int' cinit
>>> | `-IntegerLiteral 0x3aa0e48 <col:13> 'int' 0
>>> |-IfStmt 0x3aa4f78 <line:15:3, line:16:12>
>>> | |-<<<NULL>>>
>>> | |-BinaryOperator 0x3aa4e98 <line:15:7, col:47> 'int' '||'
>>> | | |-BinaryOperator 0x3aa4de8 <col:7, col:35> 'int' '||'
>>> | | | |-BinaryOperator 0x3aa4cd0 <col:7, col:18> 'int' '!='
>>> | | | | |-ImplicitCastExpr 0x3aa4cb8 <col:7> 'char *'
>>> <LValueToRValue>
>>> | | | | | `-DeclRefExpr 0x3aa4be8 <col:7> 'char *' lvalue Var
>>> 0x3aa0cd8 'p' 'char *'
>>> | | | | `-UnaryOperator 0x3aa4c98 <col:12, col:18> 'char *' prefix
>>> '&'
>>> | | | | `-ArraySubscriptExpr 0x3aa4c70 <col:13, col:18> 'char'
>>> lvalue
>>> | | | | |-ImplicitCastExpr 0x3aa4c58 <col:13> 'char *'
>>> <ArrayToPointerDecay>
>>> | | | | | `-DeclRefExpr 0x3aa4c10 <col:13> 'char [8]' lvalue
>>> Var 0x3aa0948 'buf' 'char [8]'
>>> | | | | `-IntegerLiteral 0x3aa4c38 <col:17> 'int' 8
>>> | | | `-BinaryOperator 0x3aa4dc0 <col:23, col:35> 'int' '!='
>>> | | | |-ImplicitCastExpr 0x3aa4da8 <col:23> 'char *'
>>> <LValueToRValue>
>>> | | | | `-DeclRefExpr 0x3aa4cf8 <col:23> 'char *' lvalue Var
>>> 0x3aa0d48 'q' 'char *'
>>> | | | `-BinaryOperator 0x3aa4d80 <col:28, col:35> 'char *' '+'
>>> | | | |-ImplicitCastExpr 0x3aa4d68 <col:28> 'char *'
>>> <ArrayToPointerDecay>
>>> | | | | `-DeclRefExpr 0x3aa4d20 <col:28> 'char [8]' lvalue Var
>>> 0x3aa0a98 'buf2' 'char [8]'
>>> | | | `-IntegerLiteral 0x3aa4d48 <col:35> 'int' 8
>>> | | `-BinaryOperator 0x3aa4e70 <col:40, col:47> 'int' '!='
>>> | | |-ImplicitCastExpr 0x3aa4e58 <col:40> 'int' <LValueToRValue>
>>> | | | `-DeclRefExpr 0x3aa4e10 <col:40> 'int' lvalue Var
>>> 0x3aa0de8 'sum' 'int'
>>> | | `-IntegerLiteral 0x3aa4e38 <col:47> 'int' 576
>>> | |-CallExpr 0x3aa4f50 <line:16:5, col:12> 'void'
>>> | | `-ImplicitCastExpr 0x3aa4f38 <col:5> 'void (*)(void)
>>> __attribute__((noreturn))' <FunctionToPointerDecay>
>>> | | `-DeclRefExpr 0x3aa4ee0 <col:5> 'void (void)
>>> __attribute__((noreturn))' Function 0x3aa0828 'abort' 'void (void)
>>> __attribute__((noreturn))'
>>> | `-<<<NULL>>>
>>> `-ReturnStmt 0x3aa4fc8 <line:17:3, col:10>
>>> `-IntegerLiteral 0x3aa4fa8 <col:10> 'int' 0
>>>
>>>
>>> As you can see, there is no OMPParallelForDirective.
>>>
>>> Is it a bug in Clang? Or maybe the OMPParallelForDirective is not
>>> created because the loop doesn't respect the canonical form described
>>> by the OpenMP spec? In this case, it should be much better to return
>>> an error message like "for is not canonical" or something.
>>>
>>> This test can be compiled with GCC 5.3.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list