[flang-commits] [mlir] [flang] [acc] Initial implementation of MemoryEffects on `acc` operations (PR #75970)

[Razvan Lupusoru via flang-commits]

================
@@ -299,50 +308,73 @@ class OpenACC_DataEntryOp<string mnemonic, string clause, string extraDescriptio
 // 2.5.13 private clause
 //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
 def OpenACC_PrivateOp : OpenACC_DataEntryOp<"private",
-    "mlir::acc::DataClause::acc_private", ""> {
+    "mlir::acc::DataClause::acc_private", "", [],
+    (ins OpenACC_PointerLikeTypeInterface:$varPtr)> {
   let summary = "Represents private semantics for acc private clause.";
+  let results = (outs Arg<OpenACC_PointerLikeTypeInterface,
+                          "Address of device variable",[MemWrite]>:$accPtr);
 }
 
 //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
 // 2.5.14 firstprivate clause
 //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
 def OpenACC_FirstprivateOp : OpenACC_DataEntryOp<"firstprivate",
-    "mlir::acc::DataClause::acc_firstprivate", ""> {
+    "mlir::acc::DataClause::acc_firstprivate", "", [],
+    (ins Arg<OpenACC_PointerLikeTypeInterface,"Address of variable",[MemRead]>:$varPtr)> {
   let summary = "Represents firstprivate semantic for the acc firstprivate "
                 "clause.";
+  let results = (outs Arg<OpenACC_PointerLikeTypeInterface,
+                          "Address of device variable",[MemWrite]>:$accPtr);
 }
 
 //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
 // 2.5.15 reduction clause
 //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
 def OpenACC_ReductionOp : OpenACC_DataEntryOp<"reduction",
-    "mlir::acc::DataClause::acc_reduction", ""> {
+    "mlir::acc::DataClause::acc_reduction", "",
+    [MemoryEffects<[MemRead<OpenACC_RuntimeCounters>,
----------------
razvanlupusoru wrote:

> Is this really required? I thought the data action is decomposed from the reduction clause as explicit copyin/copyout.

Nice catch - I forgot that this is what was done. I currently modeled it as a `copyin` but instead should be modeled like `firstprivate` instead remembering this.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75970