Re: [PATCH 5/5] Add illegal cilk checks to C++ front.
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 11:03:50PM -0600, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 10/01/2014 11:26 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > >+ if (check_no_cilk (cond, "in a condition for a for-loop")) > > Why is this one "in" while the others are "as"? I think "in" was somewhere hard coded in the test suite and I wanted to minimize test suite changes. So I tried to keep the existing messages the same as before. > The patch is OK in any case. > > Please ping me directly on C++ patches. Ok. Thanks. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
Re: [C++ PING^3] Re: [PATCH 5/5] Add illegal cilk checks to C++ front.
Andi Kleen writes:
Ping!^3
> Andi Kleen writes:
>
> Ping!^2
>
>> Andi Kleen writes:
>>
>> Ping!
>>
>> Can someone from the C++ side please approve this patch?
>> That's the only patch not approved in this patch kit, but blocking
>> the commit.
>>
>> -Andi
>>
>>> From: Andi Kleen
>>>
>>> Add calls for several illegal Cilk cases to the C++ frontend.
>>> C++ usually doesn't ICE unlike C on illegal cilk, but it's
>>> better to match C in what is allowed and what is not.
>>>
>>> if (_Cilk_spawn ...) is still not errored, but at least it doesn't ICE.
>>>
>>> gcc/cp/:
>>>
>>> 2014-09-30 Andi Kleen
>>>
>>> * semantics.c (finish_goto_stmt): Call check_no_cilk.
>>> (finish_while_stmt_cond): Dito.
>>> (finish_do_stmt): Dito.
>>> (finish_for_cond): Dito.
>>> (finish_switch_cond): Dito.
>>> ---
>>> gcc/cp/semantics.c | 12
>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/semantics.c b/gcc/cp/semantics.c
>>> index 7569826..9ca03be 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/cp/semantics.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/cp/semantics.c
>>> @@ -621,6 +621,8 @@ finish_goto_stmt (tree destination)
>>> TREE_USED (destination) = 1;
>>>else
>>> {
>>> + if (check_no_cilk (destination, "as a computed goto expression"))
>>> + destination = error_mark_node;
>>>destination = mark_rvalue_use (destination);
>>>if (!processing_template_decl)
>>> {
>>> @@ -792,6 +794,8 @@ begin_while_stmt (void)
>>> void
>>> finish_while_stmt_cond (tree cond, tree while_stmt, bool ivdep)
>>> {
>>> + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "as a condition for while statement"))
>>> +cond = error_mark_node;
>>>cond = maybe_convert_cond (cond);
>>>finish_cond (&WHILE_COND (while_stmt), cond);
>>>begin_maybe_infinite_loop (cond);
>>> @@ -847,6 +851,8 @@ finish_do_body (tree do_stmt)
>>> void
>>> finish_do_stmt (tree cond, tree do_stmt, bool ivdep)
>>> {
>>> + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "as a condition for a do-while statement"))
>>> +cond = error_mark_node;
>>>cond = maybe_convert_cond (cond);
>>>end_maybe_infinite_loop (cond);
>>>if (ivdep && cond != error_mark_node)
>>> @@ -956,6 +962,8 @@ finish_for_init_stmt (tree for_stmt)
>>> void
>>> finish_for_cond (tree cond, tree for_stmt, bool ivdep)
>>> {
>>> + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "in a condition for a for-loop"))
>>> +cond = error_mark_node;
>>>cond = maybe_convert_cond (cond);
>>>finish_cond (&FOR_COND (for_stmt), cond);
>>>begin_maybe_infinite_loop (cond);
>>> @@ -1118,6 +1126,10 @@ void
>>> finish_switch_cond (tree cond, tree switch_stmt)
>>> {
>>>tree orig_type = NULL;
>>> +
>>> + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "as a condition for switch statement"))
>>> +cond = error_mark_node;
>>> +
>>>if (!processing_template_decl)
>>> {
>>>/* Convert the condition to an integer or enumeration type. */
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
Re: [PATCH 5/5] Add illegal cilk checks to C++ front.
On 10/01/2014 11:26 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "in a condition for a for-loop")) Why is this one "in" while the others are "as"? The patch is OK in any case. Please ping me directly on C++ patches. Thanks, Jason
Re: [C++ PING^2] Re: [PATCH 5/5] Add illegal cilk checks to C++ front.
Andi Kleen writes:
Ping!^2
> Andi Kleen writes:
>
> Ping!
>
> Can someone from the C++ side please approve this patch?
> That's the only patch not approved in this patch kit, but blocking
> the commit.
>
> -Andi
>
>> From: Andi Kleen
>>
>> Add calls for several illegal Cilk cases to the C++ frontend.
>> C++ usually doesn't ICE unlike C on illegal cilk, but it's
>> better to match C in what is allowed and what is not.
>>
>> if (_Cilk_spawn ...) is still not errored, but at least it doesn't ICE.
>>
>> gcc/cp/:
>>
>> 2014-09-30 Andi Kleen
>>
>> * semantics.c (finish_goto_stmt): Call check_no_cilk.
>> (finish_while_stmt_cond): Dito.
>> (finish_do_stmt): Dito.
>> (finish_for_cond): Dito.
>> (finish_switch_cond): Dito.
>> ---
>> gcc/cp/semantics.c | 12
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/semantics.c b/gcc/cp/semantics.c
>> index 7569826..9ca03be 100644
>> --- a/gcc/cp/semantics.c
>> +++ b/gcc/cp/semantics.c
>> @@ -621,6 +621,8 @@ finish_goto_stmt (tree destination)
>> TREE_USED (destination) = 1;
>>else
>> {
>> + if (check_no_cilk (destination, "as a computed goto expression"))
>> +destination = error_mark_node;
>>destination = mark_rvalue_use (destination);
>>if (!processing_template_decl)
>> {
>> @@ -792,6 +794,8 @@ begin_while_stmt (void)
>> void
>> finish_while_stmt_cond (tree cond, tree while_stmt, bool ivdep)
>> {
>> + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "as a condition for while statement"))
>> +cond = error_mark_node;
>>cond = maybe_convert_cond (cond);
>>finish_cond (&WHILE_COND (while_stmt), cond);
>>begin_maybe_infinite_loop (cond);
>> @@ -847,6 +851,8 @@ finish_do_body (tree do_stmt)
>> void
>> finish_do_stmt (tree cond, tree do_stmt, bool ivdep)
>> {
>> + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "as a condition for a do-while statement"))
>> +cond = error_mark_node;
>>cond = maybe_convert_cond (cond);
>>end_maybe_infinite_loop (cond);
>>if (ivdep && cond != error_mark_node)
>> @@ -956,6 +962,8 @@ finish_for_init_stmt (tree for_stmt)
>> void
>> finish_for_cond (tree cond, tree for_stmt, bool ivdep)
>> {
>> + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "in a condition for a for-loop"))
>> +cond = error_mark_node;
>>cond = maybe_convert_cond (cond);
>>finish_cond (&FOR_COND (for_stmt), cond);
>>begin_maybe_infinite_loop (cond);
>> @@ -1118,6 +1126,10 @@ void
>> finish_switch_cond (tree cond, tree switch_stmt)
>> {
>>tree orig_type = NULL;
>> +
>> + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "as a condition for switch statement"))
>> +cond = error_mark_node;
>> +
>>if (!processing_template_decl)
>> {
>>/* Convert the condition to an integer or enumeration type. */
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
[C++ PING] Re: [PATCH 5/5] Add illegal cilk checks to C++ front.
Andi Kleen writes:
Ping!
Can someone from the C++ side please approve this patch?
That's the only patch not approved in this patch kit, but blocking
the commit.
-Andi
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> Add calls for several illegal Cilk cases to the C++ frontend.
> C++ usually doesn't ICE unlike C on illegal cilk, but it's
> better to match C in what is allowed and what is not.
>
> if (_Cilk_spawn ...) is still not errored, but at least it doesn't ICE.
>
> gcc/cp/:
>
> 2014-09-30 Andi Kleen
>
> * semantics.c (finish_goto_stmt): Call check_no_cilk.
> (finish_while_stmt_cond): Dito.
> (finish_do_stmt): Dito.
> (finish_for_cond): Dito.
> (finish_switch_cond): Dito.
> ---
> gcc/cp/semantics.c | 12
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/semantics.c b/gcc/cp/semantics.c
> index 7569826..9ca03be 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/semantics.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/semantics.c
> @@ -621,6 +621,8 @@ finish_goto_stmt (tree destination)
> TREE_USED (destination) = 1;
>else
> {
> + if (check_no_cilk (destination, "as a computed goto expression"))
> + destination = error_mark_node;
>destination = mark_rvalue_use (destination);
>if (!processing_template_decl)
> {
> @@ -792,6 +794,8 @@ begin_while_stmt (void)
> void
> finish_while_stmt_cond (tree cond, tree while_stmt, bool ivdep)
> {
> + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "as a condition for while statement"))
> +cond = error_mark_node;
>cond = maybe_convert_cond (cond);
>finish_cond (&WHILE_COND (while_stmt), cond);
>begin_maybe_infinite_loop (cond);
> @@ -847,6 +851,8 @@ finish_do_body (tree do_stmt)
> void
> finish_do_stmt (tree cond, tree do_stmt, bool ivdep)
> {
> + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "as a condition for a do-while statement"))
> +cond = error_mark_node;
>cond = maybe_convert_cond (cond);
>end_maybe_infinite_loop (cond);
>if (ivdep && cond != error_mark_node)
> @@ -956,6 +962,8 @@ finish_for_init_stmt (tree for_stmt)
> void
> finish_for_cond (tree cond, tree for_stmt, bool ivdep)
> {
> + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "in a condition for a for-loop"))
> +cond = error_mark_node;
>cond = maybe_convert_cond (cond);
>finish_cond (&FOR_COND (for_stmt), cond);
>begin_maybe_infinite_loop (cond);
> @@ -1118,6 +1126,10 @@ void
> finish_switch_cond (tree cond, tree switch_stmt)
> {
>tree orig_type = NULL;
> +
> + if (check_no_cilk (cond, "as a condition for switch statement"))
> +cond = error_mark_node;
> +
>if (!processing_template_decl)
> {
>/* Convert the condition to an integer or enumeration type. */
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
[PATCH 5/5] Add illegal cilk checks to C++ front.
From: Andi Kleen
Add calls for several illegal Cilk cases to the C++ frontend.
C++ usually doesn't ICE unlike C on illegal cilk, but it's
better to match C in what is allowed and what is not.
if (_Cilk_spawn ...) is still not errored, but at least it doesn't ICE.
gcc/cp/:
2014-09-30 Andi Kleen
* semantics.c (finish_goto_stmt): Call check_no_cilk.
(finish_while_stmt_cond): Dito.
(finish_do_stmt): Dito.
(finish_for_cond): Dito.
(finish_switch_cond): Dito.
---
gcc/cp/semantics.c | 12
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/cp/semantics.c b/gcc/cp/semantics.c
index 7569826..9ca03be 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/semantics.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/semantics.c
@@ -621,6 +621,8 @@ finish_goto_stmt (tree destination)
TREE_USED (destination) = 1;
else
{
+ if (check_no_cilk (destination, "as a computed goto expression"))
+ destination = error_mark_node;
destination = mark_rvalue_use (destination);
if (!processing_template_decl)
{
@@ -792,6 +794,8 @@ begin_while_stmt (void)
void
finish_while_stmt_cond (tree cond, tree while_stmt, bool ivdep)
{
+ if (check_no_cilk (cond, "as a condition for while statement"))
+cond = error_mark_node;
cond = maybe_convert_cond (cond);
finish_cond (&WHILE_COND (while_stmt), cond);
begin_maybe_infinite_loop (cond);
@@ -847,6 +851,8 @@ finish_do_body (tree do_stmt)
void
finish_do_stmt (tree cond, tree do_stmt, bool ivdep)
{
+ if (check_no_cilk (cond, "as a condition for a do-while statement"))
+cond = error_mark_node;
cond = maybe_convert_cond (cond);
end_maybe_infinite_loop (cond);
if (ivdep && cond != error_mark_node)
@@ -956,6 +962,8 @@ finish_for_init_stmt (tree for_stmt)
void
finish_for_cond (tree cond, tree for_stmt, bool ivdep)
{
+ if (check_no_cilk (cond, "in a condition for a for-loop"))
+cond = error_mark_node;
cond = maybe_convert_cond (cond);
finish_cond (&FOR_COND (for_stmt), cond);
begin_maybe_infinite_loop (cond);
@@ -1118,6 +1126,10 @@ void
finish_switch_cond (tree cond, tree switch_stmt)
{
tree orig_type = NULL;
+
+ if (check_no_cilk (cond, "as a condition for switch statement"))
+cond = error_mark_node;
+
if (!processing_template_decl)
{
/* Convert the condition to an integer or enumeration type. */
--
2.1.1
