rjmccall added inline comments.
================ Comment at: include/clang/Basic/TargetInfo.h:944 + /// \brief Whether target supports variable-length arrays. + bool isVLASupported() const { return VLASupported; } + ---------------- ABataev wrote: > ABataev wrote: > > Hahnfeld wrote: > > > rjmccall wrote: > > > > Hahnfeld wrote: > > > > > rjmccall wrote: > > > > > > Hahnfeld wrote: > > > > > > > rjmccall wrote: > > > > > > > > The way you've written this makes it sound like "does the > > > > > > > > target support VLAs?", but the actual semantic checks treat it > > > > > > > > as "do OpenMP devices on this target support VLAs?" Maybe > > > > > > > > there should be a more specific way to query things about > > > > > > > > OpenMP devices instead of setting a global flag for the target? > > > > > > > Actually, the NVPTX and SPIR targets never support VLAs. So I > > > > > > > felt like it would be more correct to make this a global property > > > > > > > of the target. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The difference is that the other programming models (OpenCL and > > > > > > > CUDA) error out immediatelyand regardless of the target because > > > > > > > this limitation is reflected in the standards that disallow VLAs > > > > > > > (see SemaType.cpp). For OpenMP we might have target devices that > > > > > > > support VLA so we shouldn't error out for those. > > > > > > If you want to make it a global property of the target, that's > > > > > > fine, but then I don't understand why your diagnostic only fires > > > > > > when (S.isInOpenMPDeclareTargetContext() || > > > > > > S.isInOpenMPTargetExecutionDirective()). > > > > > That is because of how OpenMP offloading works and how it is > > > > > implemented in Clang. Consider the following snippet from the added > > > > > test case: > > > > > ```lang=c > > > > > int vla[arg]; > > > > > > > > > > #pragma omp target map(vla[0:arg]) > > > > > { > > > > > // more code here... > > > > > } > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > Clang will take the following steps to compile this into a working > > > > > binary for a GPU: > > > > > 1. Parse and (semantically) analyze the code as-is for the host and > > > > > produce LLVM Bitcode. > > > > > 2. Parse and analyze again the code as-is and generate code for the > > > > > offloading target, the GPU in this case. > > > > > 3. Take LLVM Bitcode from 1., generate host binary and embed target > > > > > binary from 3. > > > > > > > > > > `OpenMPIsDevice` will be true for 2., but the complete source code is > > > > > analyzed. So to not throw errors for the host code, we have to make > > > > > sure that we are actually generating code for the target device. This > > > > > is either in a `target` directive or in a `declare target` region. > > > > > Note that this is quite similar to what CUDA does, only they have > > > > > `CUDADiagIfDeviceCode` for this logic. If you want me to add > > > > > something of that kind for OpenMP target devices, I'm fine with that. > > > > > However for the given case, it's a bit different because this error > > > > > should only be thrown for target devices that don't support VLAs... > > > > I see. So the entire translation unit is re-parsed and re-Sema'ed from > > > > scratch for the target? Which means you need to avoid generating > > > > errors about things in the outer translation unit that aren't part of > > > > the target directive that you actually want to compile. I would've > > > > expected there to be some existing mechanism for that, to be honest, as > > > > opposed to explicitly trying to suppress target-specific diagnostics > > > > one by one. > > > Yes, that is my understanding. For errors, we don't need to take anything > > > special as the first `cc1` invocation will exit with a non-zero status so > > > that the driver stops the compilation. For warnings, there seems to be no > > > mechanism in place as I see them duplicated, even in code that is not > > > generate for the target device (verified with an unused variable). > > > > > > @ABataev @gtbercea Do I miss something here? > > I'm not aware of any. > John, target-specific checks require some special flags (like LangOpts.Cuda) > that are not set when we re-compile the code for OpenMP devices. That's why > errors are not emitted for the non-target code. But also because of that, we > need some special OpenMP checks for target-specific code inside the target > regions. For example, code in lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp, lines 2184, 2185 (see > this file in this patch) checks for Cuda compilation and prohibits using of > VLAs in Cuda mode. We also should prohibit using of VLAs in target code for > NVPTX devices or other devices that do not support VLAs in OpenMP mode. I think it would be cleaner here, and better for our OpenMP support overall, if we found a more general way to suppress unwanted diagnostics in the second invocation for code outside of the target directive. This check (and several others) would then just implement a more general target feature disabling VLA support instead of being awkwardly OpenMP-specific. https://reviews.llvm.org/D39505 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits