[PATCH] D129149: [OMPIRBuilder] Add support for simdlen clause

[Prabhdeep Soni via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

psoni2628 added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGStmtOpenMP.cpp:2596
   // Check for unsupported clauses
-  if (!S.clauses().empty()) {
-    // Currently no clause is supported
-    return false;
+  for (OMPClause *C : S.clauses()) {
+    // Currently only simdlen clause is supported
----------------
shraiysh wrote:
> psoni2628 wrote:
> > psoni2628 wrote:
> > > arnamoy10 wrote:
> > > > I am just wondering whether we should have a check to make sure that we are processing the clauses of only `simd` directive here. Because the function takes a general `OMPExecutableDirective` as argument 
> > > That's a fair point. I guess `isSupportedByOpenMPIRBuilder` could be used for other directive types other than simd, even though it's not right now.
> > Would it make more sense to only guard the checking of clauses with a check for `OMPSimdDirective`, or the whole thing? I believe even the code below, which checks for an ordered directive, is also specifically for `simd`?
> > 
> > 
> > Example of guarding the whole thing:
> > 
> > ```
> >   if(dyn_cast<OMPSimdDirective>(S)) {
> >     // Check for unsupported clauses
> >     for (OMPClause *C : S.clauses()) {
> >       // Currently only simdlen clause is supported
> >       if (dyn_cast<OMPSimdlenClause>(C))
> >         continue;
> >       else
> >         return false;
> >     }
> > 
> >     // Check if we have a statement with the ordered directive.
> >     // Visit the statement hierarchy to find a compound statement
> >     // with a ordered directive in it.
> >     if (const auto *CanonLoop = dyn_cast<OMPCanonicalLoop>(S.getRawStmt())) {
> >       if (const Stmt *SyntacticalLoop = CanonLoop->getLoopStmt()) {
> >         for (const Stmt *SubStmt : SyntacticalLoop->children()) {
> >           if (!SubStmt)
> >             continue;
> >           if (const CompoundStmt *CS = dyn_cast<CompoundStmt>(SubStmt)) {
> >             for (const Stmt *CSSubStmt : CS->children()) {
> >               if (!CSSubStmt)
> >                 continue;
> >               if (isa<OMPOrderedDirective>(CSSubStmt)) {
> >                 return false;
> >               }
> >             }
> >           }
> >         }
> >       }
> >     }
> >   }
> > ```
> Can we instead have separate `isSupportedByOpenMPIRBuilder` for every directive to avoid bloating the function with checks and if conditions?
> ```
> static bool isSupportedByOpenMPIRBuilder(const OMPSimdDirective &S) {...}
> void CodeGenFunction::EmitOMPSimdDirective(const OMPSimdDirective &S) {...}
> 
> static bool isSupportedByOpenMPIRBuilder(const OMPOrderedDirective &S) {...}
> void CodeGenFunction::EmitOMPOrderedDirective(const OMPOrderedDirective &S) {...}
> 
> static bool isSupportedByOpenMPIRBuilder(const OMPTaskDirective &S) {...}
> void CodeGenFunction::EmitOMPOrderedDirective(const OMPTaskDirective &S) {...}
> ```
It was decided in D114379 to use `OMPExecutableDirective` in order to allow this function to be reused for constructs such as `for simd`. Do you wish to undo this now, and instead specialize the function?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D129149/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D129149