[PATCH] D83998: [flang][openacc] Basic name resolution infrastructure for OpenACC construct

[Peter Klausler via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

klausler accepted this revision.
klausler added a comment.

Please get approval from @tskeith before merging these changes.  Thanks for your valuable contributions!



================
Comment at: flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp:1085
 
+template <typename T> class DirectiveAttributeVisitor {
+public:
----------------
clementval wrote:
> clementval wrote:
> > klausler wrote:
> > > resolve-names.cpp is already a large source file.  Does the directive name resolution code have to be in there in order to use things that are local to that file?  If not, maybe all the directive name resolution code could reside elsewhere.
> > I think we can move that into a separate file. I'll update the patch. Thanks for the suggestion.
> @klausler I would have to move some class declaration from `resolve-name.cpp` to `resolve-name.h`. If this is fine I will split the files. 
Which classes?

Can they go into resolve-names-utils.{h,cpp} instead?


================
Comment at: flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp:1085
 
+template <typename T> class DirectiveAttributeVisitor {
+public:
----------------
clementval wrote:
> klausler wrote:
> > clementval wrote:
> > > clementval wrote:
> > > > klausler wrote:
> > > > > resolve-names.cpp is already a large source file.  Does the directive name resolution code have to be in there in order to use things that are local to that file?  If not, maybe all the directive name resolution code could reside elsewhere.
> > > > I think we can move that into a separate file. I'll update the patch. Thanks for the suggestion.
> > > @klausler I would have to move some class declaration from `resolve-name.cpp` to `resolve-name.h`. If this is fine I will split the files. 
> > Which classes?
> > 
> > Can they go into resolve-names-utils.{h,cpp} instead?
> In fact most of the class declarations would have to be moved to the `resolve-name.h` file in order to be able to split the file and have its own for directive resolution.
That may be the case for `AccVisitor`, but can `AccAttributeVisitor` be extracted into its own header and C++ source file?


================
Comment at: flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp:1085
 
+template <typename T> class DirectiveAttributeVisitor {
+public:
----------------
clementval wrote:
> klausler wrote:
> > clementval wrote:
> > > klausler wrote:
> > > > clementval wrote:
> > > > > clementval wrote:
> > > > > > klausler wrote:
> > > > > > > resolve-names.cpp is already a large source file.  Does the directive name resolution code have to be in there in order to use things that are local to that file?  If not, maybe all the directive name resolution code could reside elsewhere.
> > > > > > I think we can move that into a separate file. I'll update the patch. Thanks for the suggestion.
> > > > > @klausler I would have to move some class declaration from `resolve-name.cpp` to `resolve-name.h`. If this is fine I will split the files. 
> > > > Which classes?
> > > > 
> > > > Can they go into resolve-names-utils.{h,cpp} instead?
> > > In fact most of the class declarations would have to be moved to the `resolve-name.h` file in order to be able to split the file and have its own for directive resolution.
> > That may be the case for `AccVisitor`, but can `AccAttributeVisitor` be extracted into its own header and C++ source file?
> After some work on this, this would need to move all the declarations in to a header file (`resolve-name.h`) because the `Acc/OmpVisitor` and `Acc/OmpAttributeVisitor` use classes declared inside `resolve-names.cpp` and those classes derived from other internal classes as well. 
> 
> It would be much easier to keep those declarations together. One solution to reduce the size of the file might be to extract the declarations in the `.h` file and keep only the implementation in the `.cpp` file but still together. Introducing new files for the directive part makes it harder since they are interdependent. 
> 
> What do you think is the best to move forward @klausler? 
Please don't embark on a wholesale restructuring of resolve-names.cpp without consulting with @tskeith.  If there isn't an obvious way to extract the name resolution for directives, just leave it in there.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D83998/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D83998