[flang-commits] [flang] [flang][openacc] Lower loop directive to the new acc.loop op design (PR #65417)

[Razvan Lupusoru via flang-commits]

================
@@ -1356,11 +1368,73 @@ createLoopOp(Fortran::lower::AbstractConverter &converter,
   mlir::Value gangNum;
   mlir::Value gangDim;
   mlir::Value gangStatic;
-  llvm::SmallVector<mlir::Value, 2> tileOperands, privateOperands,
-      reductionOperands;
+  llvm::SmallVector<mlir::Value> tileOperands, privateOperands, ivPrivate,
+      reductionOperands, lowerbounds, upperbounds, steps;
   llvm::SmallVector<mlir::Attribute> privatizations, reductionRecipes;
+
   bool hasGang = false, hasVector = false, hasWorker = false;
 
+  llvm::SmallVector<mlir::Type> ivTypes;
+  llvm::SmallVector<mlir::Location> ivLocs;
+  llvm::SmallVector<bool> inclusiveBounds;
+
+  if (outerDoConstruct.IsDoConcurrent())
+    TODO(currentLocation, "OpenACC loop with DO CONCURRENT");
+
+  int64_t collapseValue = Fortran::lower::getCollapseValue(accClauseList);
+  Fortran::lower::pft::Evaluation *crtEval = &eval.getFirstNestedEvaluation();
+  for (unsigned i = 0; i < collapseValue; ++i) {
+    const Fortran::parser::LoopControl *loopControl;
+    if (i == 0) {
+      loopControl = &*outerDoConstruct.GetLoopControl();
+    } else {
+      auto *doCons = crtEval->getIf<Fortran::parser::DoConstruct>();
+      assert(doCons && "expect do construct");
+      loopControl = &*doCons->GetLoopControl();
+    }
+
+    const Fortran::parser::LoopControl::Bounds *bounds =
+        std::get_if<Fortran::parser::LoopControl::Bounds>(&loopControl->u);
+    assert(bounds && "Expected bounds on the loop construct");
+    lowerbounds.push_back(fir::getBase(converter.genExprValue(
+        *Fortran::semantics::GetExpr(bounds->lower), stmtCtx)));
+    upperbounds.push_back(fir::getBase(converter.genExprValue(
+        *Fortran::semantics::GetExpr(bounds->upper), stmtCtx)));
+    if (bounds->step)
+      steps.push_back(fir::getBase(converter.genExprValue(
+          *Fortran::semantics::GetExpr(bounds->step), stmtCtx)));
+    else // If `step` is not present, assume it as `1`.
+      steps.push_back(builder.createIntegerConstant(
+          currentLocation, builder.getIntegerType(32), 1));
----------------
razvanlupusoru wrote:

Should the same type as bounds be used?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65417