[flang-commits] [flang] [Flang][Lower][OpenMP] Add initial lowering of pointers/allocatables/target in map clauses to map_info and entries (PR #68600)

[Razvan Lupusoru via flang-commits]

================
@@ -1752,11 +1754,82 @@ bool ClauseProcessor::processMap(
                                        semanticsContext, stmtCtx, ompObject,
                                        clauseLocation, asFortran, bounds);
 
+          auto checkIfStructComponent =
+              [](const Fortran::parser::OmpObject &ompObject) {
+                bool isComponent = false;
+                std::visit(
+                    Fortran::common::visitors{
+                        [&](const Fortran::parser::Designator &designator) {
+                          if (auto *structComp = Fortran::parser::Unwrap<
+                                  Fortran::parser::StructureComponent>(
+                                  designator)) {
+                            if (std::holds_alternative<Fortran::parser::Name>(
+                                    structComp->base.u))
+                              isComponent = true;
+                          }
+                        },
+                        [&](const Fortran::parser::Name &name) {}},
+                    ompObject.u);
+
+                return isComponent;
+              };
+
+          // TODO: Currently, it appears there's missing symbol information
+          // and bounds information for allocatables and pointers inside
+          // of derived types. The latter needs some additional support
+          // added to the bounds generation whereas the former appears
+          // that it could be a problem when referring to pointer members
+          // via an OpenMP map clause, for the moment we do not handle
+          // these cases and must emit an error.
+          if (checkIfStructComponent(ompObject) &&
+              Fortran::semantics::IsAllocatableOrPointer(
+                  *getOmpObjectSymbol(ompObject)))
+            TODO(currentLocation,
+                 "pointer members of derived types are currently unmapped");
+
+          if (Fortran::semantics::IsAllocatableOrPointer(
+                  *getOmpObjectSymbol(ompObject))) {
+            // We mimic what will eventually be a structure containing a
+            // pointer mapping for allocatables/pointers/target e.g.:
+            //
+            // !$omp target map(from:in, in%map_ptr)
+            //
+            // ===>
+            //
+            // map_entry varptr(in) ....
+            // map_entry varptr(map_ptr) varptrptr(in) ...
----------------
razvanlupusoru wrote:

I admit I don't see why create a varParentPtr instead of varPtrPtr. You can deduce the actual parent from the varPtrPtr since an access of a member (when it gets materialized). Also, if you don't have the access to the field directly how do you know how to do the attach action? Interestingly in this case, &descriptor == &(descriptor.base_addr), so that is probably why it works just fine for LLVM - but again I feel like varParentPtr is not the abstraction you really want.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68600