[cfe-dev] [OMP] Clang fails to handle parallel for + collapse
Samuel Pitoiset via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Feb 18 04:21:26 PST 2016
On 02/18/2016 12:52 PM, Alexey Bataev wrote:
> Seems to me we've run into some corner case. I'll fix this soon
I didn't see any regressions with my other OpenMP tests and this
loop-9.c is fixed now, but I believe you :-). Thanks.
>
> 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
>
--
-Samuel
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list