[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [flang] [llvm] [mlir] [Flang][MLIR][OpenMP] Explicitly represent omp.target kernel types (PR #186166)

[Sergio Afonso via llvm-branch-commits]

================
@@ -201,6 +190,393 @@ class HostEvalInfo {
   llvm::SmallVector<const semantics::Symbol *> iv;
   bool loopNestApplied = false, parallelApplied = false;
 };
+
+class OpenMPPatternProcessor {
+public:
+  OpenMPPatternProcessor(semantics::SemanticsContext &semaCtx)
+      : semaCtx(semaCtx) {}
+  virtual ~OpenMPPatternProcessor() = default;
+
+  /// Run the pattern from the given evaluation.
+  void process(lower::pft::Evaluation &eval) {
+    dirsToProcess = initialDirsToProcess();
+    processEval(eval);
+  }
+
+protected:
+  /// Returns the set of directives of interest at the beginning of the pattern.
+  virtual OmpDirectiveSet initialDirsToProcess() const = 0;
+
+  /// Processes a single directive and, based on it, returns the set of other
+  /// directives of interest that would be part of the pattern if nested inside
+  /// of it.
+  virtual OmpDirectiveSet processDirective(lower::pft::Evaluation &eval,
+                                           llvm::omp::Directive dir) = 0;
+
+  /// Obtain the list of clauses of the given OpenMP block or loop construct
+  /// evaluation. If it's not an OpenMP construct, no modifications are made to
+  /// the \c clauses output argument.
+  void extractClauses(lower::pft::Evaluation &eval, List<Clause> &clauses) {
+    const auto *ompEval = eval.getIf<parser::OpenMPConstruct>();
+    if (!ompEval)
+      return;
----------------
skatrak wrote:

I think that for this case we're actually following MLIR style way more often than Flang style.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/186166