https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741
Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|cesar at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
<https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg00932.html>.
(In reply to cesar from comment #6)
> a) The fortran pretty printer doesn't know about generic tree notes.
> Consequently, I don't think build_oacc_routine_dims would be able to report
> any errors unless we add support for tree notes in that pretty printer.
I've not (yet?) into any such problems. Phew. ;-)
> b) The fortran FE handle errors slightly differently from the c FE. Instead
> of catching the error early and aborting immediately, you're method will
> defer the error handling to after the FE has parsed everything. I'm not sure
> if this is a problem or not.
It seems to work fine, and, as discussed, something like that will be needed
anyway, once we get to support the OpenACC device_type clause.
> c) That oacc_function information needs to be captured for fortran module
> .mod files, and those .mod files don't require tree node attributes.
> Postponing that attribute requires separate functions to manipulate the
> routine clauses.
ACK. Still very much TODO in my WIP patch.
> d) gfc_oacc_routine_dims is already creating an oacc_function attribute for
> routines. This attribute is a single enum instead of the individual clauses.
> I like that because its more self contained.
As discussed, it actually seems easier conceptually (maybe not in terms of
"boilerplate code") to handle these separately, and we need to do that for
being able to generate the desired compile-time diagnostics.
