[Mlir-commits] [openmp] [mlir] [flang] [Flang][OpenMP] Initial mapping of Fortran pointers and allocatables for target devices (PR #71766)
Sergio Afonso
llvmlistbot at llvm.org
Wed Jan 10 06:07:18 PST 2024
================
@@ -1747,21 +1746,185 @@ void collectMapDataFromMapOperands(MapInfoData &mapData,
mapData.BasePointers.push_back(mapData.OriginalValue.back());
}
- mapData.Sizes.push_back(getSizeInBytes(dl, mapOp.getVarType(), mapOp,
- builder, moduleTranslation));
mapData.BaseType.push_back(
moduleTranslation.convertType(mapOp.getVarType()));
+ mapData.Sizes.push_back(getSizeInBytes(
+ dl, mapOp.getVarType(), mapOp, mapData.BasePointers.back(),
+ mapData.BaseType.back(), builder, moduleTranslation));
mapData.MapClause.push_back(mapOp.getOperation());
mapData.Types.push_back(
llvm::omp::OpenMPOffloadMappingFlags(mapOp.getMapType().value()));
mapData.Names.push_back(LLVM::createMappingInformation(
mapOp.getLoc(), *moduleTranslation.getOpenMPBuilder()));
mapData.DevicePointers.push_back(
llvm::OpenMPIRBuilder::DeviceInfoTy::None);
+
+ // Check if this is a member mapping and correctly assign that it is, if
+ // it is a member of a larger object.
+ // TODO: Need better handling of members, and distinguishing of members
+ // that are implicitly allocated on device vs explicitly passed in as
+ // arguments.
+ // TODO: May require some further additions to support nested record
+ // types, i.e. member maps that can have member maps.
+ mapData.IsAMember.push_back(false);
+ for (mlir::Value mapValue : mapOperands) {
+ if (auto map = mlir::dyn_cast_if_present<mlir::omp::MapInfoOp>(
+ mapValue.getDefiningOp())) {
+ for (auto member : map.getMembers()) {
+ if (member == mapOp) {
+ mapData.IsAMember.back() = true;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ }
}
}
}
+static void processMapWithMembersOf(
+ LLVM::ModuleTranslation &moduleTranslation, llvm::IRBuilderBase &builder,
+ llvm::OpenMPIRBuilder &ompBuilder, DataLayout &dl,
+ llvm::OpenMPIRBuilder::MapInfosTy &combinedInfo, MapInfoData &mapData,
+ uint64_t mapDataIndex, bool isTargetParams) {
+ auto parentClause =
+ mlir::dyn_cast<mlir::omp::MapInfoOp>(mapData.MapClause[mapDataIndex]);
+
+ ////////// First Parent Map Segment //////////
----------------
skatrak wrote:
Would it make sense to split these 'segments' into separate functions, so it's a bit easier to follow? Feel free to ignore if you disagree, the function just looks to me to be already split into different logical units.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71766
More information about the Mlir-commits
mailing list