[flang] [llvm] [flang][OpenMP] Decompose compound constructs, do recursive lowering (PR #90098)

[Sergio Afonso via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -1447,43 +1397,47 @@ genParallelOp(Fortran::lower::AbstractConverter &converter,
 
   // TODO Merge with the reduction CB.
   genInfo.setGenRegionEntryCb(genRegionEntryCB).setDataSharingProcessor(&dsp);
-  return genOpWithBody<mlir::omp::ParallelOp>(genInfo, clauseOps);
+  return genOpWithBody<mlir::omp::ParallelOp>(genInfo, queue, item, clauseOps);
 }
 
 static mlir::omp::SectionOp
 genSectionOp(Fortran::lower::AbstractConverter &converter,
              Fortran::lower::SymMap &symTable,
              Fortran::semantics::SemanticsContext &semaCtx,
-             Fortran::lower::pft::Evaluation &eval, bool genNested,
-             mlir::Location loc, const List<Clause> &clauses) {
+             Fortran::lower::pft::Evaluation &eval, mlir::Location loc,
+             const List<Clause> &clauses, const ConstructQueue &queue,
+             ConstructQueue::iterator item) {
   // Currently only private/firstprivate clause is handled, and
   // all privatization is done within `omp.section` operations.
   return genOpWithBody<mlir::omp::SectionOp>(
       OpWithBodyGenInfo(converter, symTable, semaCtx, loc, eval,
                         llvm::omp::Directive::OMPD_section)
-          .setGenNested(genNested)
-          .setClauses(&clauses));
+          .setClauses(&clauses),
+      queue, item);
 }
 
 static mlir::omp::SectionsOp
 genSectionsOp(Fortran::lower::AbstractConverter &converter,
               Fortran::lower::SymMap &symTable,
               Fortran::semantics::SemanticsContext &semaCtx,
               Fortran::lower::pft::Evaluation &eval, mlir::Location loc,
-              const mlir::omp::SectionsClauseOps &clauseOps) {
+              const List<Clause> &clauses, const ConstructQueue &queue,
+              ConstructQueue::iterator item) {
+  mlir::omp::SectionsClauseOps clauseOps;
+  genSectionsClauses(converter, semaCtx, clauses, loc, clauseOps);
----------------
skatrak wrote:

Thanks @kiranchandramohan for checking. It seems like this change should be fine then, since this was the only place something like this was done. "Parallel do" was already handled just like what this patch will do for "parallel sections".

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90098