On 09.12.20 12:36, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
I'm confirming that it seems to work (that is, doesn't seem to cause any
obvious interference); OK to verify/document that as in the attached
"Add 'gfortran.dg/goacc-gomp/omp-scan-1-if_present.f90'"?
I don't think the testcase is useful, but I wouldn't
Hi!
On 2020-12-09T12:51:57+0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:36:26PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> Yeah, that re-purposing of 'if_present' made me raise an eyebrow, too.
>
> I've missed yesterday that the if_present is on the EXEC_OMP_SCAN, not on
> some outer EXEC that c
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:36:26PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Yeah, that re-purposing of 'if_present' made me raise an eyebrow, too.
I've missed yesterday that the if_present is on the EXEC_OMP_SCAN, not on
some outer EXEC that could be arbitrary and as !$omp scan can have only
exclusive and
Hi!
On 2020-12-09T12:06:21+0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 08.12.20 13:30, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 01:13:07PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>>> +case EXEC_OMP_SCAN:
>>> + /* Flag is only used to checking, hence, it is unset afterwards. */
>>> + if (!code->ext.
On 08.12.20 13:30, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 01:13:07PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
+if (list == OMP_LIST_REDUCTION)
+ has_inscan = true;
This looks weird, I would have expected
if (list == OMP_LIST_REDUCTION_INSCAN)
That's not only weird, that was
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 01:13:07PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> + if (list == OMP_LIST_REDUCTION)
> + has_inscan = true;
This looks weird, I would have expected
if (list == OMP_LIST_REDUCTION_INSCAN)
> @@ -6151,6 +6203,28 @@ gfc_resolve_omp_do_blocks (gfc_code *code,
>
In a previous patch, the 'inscan' reduction-clause modifier was added.
This patch add the associated 'omp scan' for two reasons:
First, to make it actually usable and, secondly, to avoid some corner
cases where 'inscan' slips through without the required 'sorry'
(as it can happen with the current
