[Mlir-commits] [flang] [mlir] [mlir][OpenMP] rewrite conversion of privatisation for omp.parallel (PR #111844)

[Tom Eccles]

================
@@ -371,20 +371,46 @@ convertOmpCritical(Operation &opInst, llvm::IRBuilderBase &builder,
   return success();
 }
 
-/// Populates `reductions` with reduction declarations used in the given loop.
+// Looks up from the operation from and returns the PrivateClauseOp with
+// name symbolName
+static omp::PrivateClauseOp findPrivatizer(Operation *from,
+                                           SymbolRefAttr symbolName) {
+  omp::PrivateClauseOp privatizer =
+      SymbolTable::lookupNearestSymbolFrom<omp::PrivateClauseOp>(from,
+                                                                 symbolName);
+  assert(privatizer && "privatizer not found in the symbol table");
+  return privatizer;
+}
+
+/// Populates `privatizations` with privatisation declarations used for the
+/// given op.
+/// TODO: generalise beyond ParallelOp
+static void collectPrivatizationDecls(
+    omp::ParallelOp op, SmallVectorImpl<omp::PrivateClauseOp> &privatizations) {
+  std::optional<ArrayAttr> attr = op.getPrivateSyms();
+  if (!attr)
+    return;
+
+  privatizations.reserve(privatizations.size() + attr->size());
+  for (auto symbolRef : attr->getAsRange<SymbolRefAttr>()) {
+    privatizations.push_back(findPrivatizer(op, symbolRef));
+  }
+}
+
+/// Populates `reductions` with reduction declarations used in the given op.
 template <typename T>
 static void
-collectReductionDecls(T loop,
+collectReductionDecls(T op,
----------------
tblah wrote:

As I was reading the code I realized this name was misleading because the op might be a ParallelOp. Would you rather I do this in a separate patch?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111844