On 2015/12/3 6:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 06:05:36PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> Oh wait, it looks like the C++ front end is not actually using the
>>> functions defined in the C/C++-shared gcc/c-family/c-omp.c, but has its
>>> own implementations in gcc/cp/semantics.c, without "c_" prefixes? In
>>> addition to finish_expr_stmt calls, I see it's also using
>>> finish_call_expr instead of build_call_expr_loc/build_call_expr_loc_vec.
>>> So I guess we'll want to model this the same way for OpenACC support
>>> functions, and then (later) we should clean this up, to move the
>>> C-specific code from gcc/c-family/c-omp.c into the C front end? (Jakub?)
>>
>> I see most OpenACC/OpenMP constructs are represented by special statement
>> codes,
>> so they should be a different case. I so far only see the OpenACC wait
>> directive
>> being represented as a CALL_EXPR (maybe there are others, haven't
>> exhaustively searched).
>
> No, Thomas is right, just look at
> finish_omp_{barrier,flush,taskwait,taskyield,cancel,cancellation_point},
> all those are represented as CALL_EXPRs.
>
> Jakub
>
Okay, I guess my impression was only for some OpenACC constructs.
Overall, OpenACC wait seems one of the few cases of using c_finish_* in
cp/parser.c.
Whether other cases should move towards/away from that kind of style is a
larger question,
I was only trying to fix a libgomp.oacc-c++/template-reduction.C regression
(testcase currently still in gomp4 branch)
Chung-Lin
