This patch put in place the basic infratrsucture for the name resolutions
in OpenACC constructs. It tries to be as similar as the OpenMP name resolution and
now share a base class DirectiveAttributeVisitor to share most of the base
infrastructure. Follow-up patches will come with more tests and name resolution
in data constructs and data-mapping clauses.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1085 | resolve-names.cpp is already a large source file. Does the directive name resolution code have to be in there in order to use things that are local to that file? If not, maybe all the directive name resolution code could reside elsewhere. |
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1085 | I think we can move that into a separate file. I'll update the patch. Thanks for the suggestion. |
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1085 | In fact most of the class declarations would have to be moved to the resolve-name.h file in order to be able to split the file and have its own for directive resolution. |
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1085 | After some work on this, this would need to move all the declarations in to a header file (resolve-name.h) because the Acc/OmpVisitor and Acc/OmpAttributeVisitor use classes declared inside resolve-names.cpp and those classes derived from other internal classes as well. It would be much easier to keep those declarations together. One solution to reduce the size of the file might be to extract the declarations in the .h file and keep only the implementation in the .cpp file but still together. Introducing new files for the directive part makes it harder since they are interdependent. What do you think is the best to move forward @klausler? |
Nice work on unifying two programming models' base attribute visitor. I am surprised that they could share most of the utils.
As you could see, the OpenMP part was a WIP work and I only added the PreDetermined attribute. In the future, ExpDetermined (explicitly) and ImpDetermined (implicitly) attributes are also needed. Besides, we have "Data Mapping Attribute" for OpenMP, which will increase the complexity too. Do you picture that OpenACC and OpenMP would work together without an issue using this framework?
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1293 | I believe this is a typo: OpenMP. |
I guess the common base could be shared at least until now and I expect that it should be do-able with the additional attributes. Of course, I'm not against having two separate attribute visitor if we find it is needed when we add attributes in OpenMP and OpenACC. Was just trying to reduce the amount of code that was obviously duplicated in this case. Hopefully we can keep sharing this infra.
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1293 | Good catch! Just updated the diff. |
Please get approval from @tskeith before merging these changes. Thanks for your valuable contributions!
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1085 | Which classes? Can they go into resolve-names-utils.{h,cpp} instead? | |
1085 | That may be the case for AccVisitor, but can AccAttributeVisitor be extracted into its own header and C++ source file? | |
1085 | Please don't embark on a wholesale restructuring of resolve-names.cpp without consulting with @tskeith. If there isn't an obvious way to extract the name resolution for directives, just leave it in there. |
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1085 | The problem is that AccAttributeVisitor, OmpAttributeVisitor and DirectiveAttributeVisitor are using ResolveNamesVisitor that is not declared in a .h file but in resolve-names.cpp. This class needs then lots of other classes declared in resolve-names.cpp. So there is no easy way to extract them without a refactoring. | |
1085 | Sure will wait on his inputs. | |
1085 | Basically almost all the classes declared in resolve-names.cpp because one inherits from another or uses other classes and we end up moving the whole things. |
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1085 | I think it's a good idea for these to be in a separate file, but it will require some restructuring. The main problem is ResolveDesignator. It is used both to resolve a Designator and to get the Name from an already-resolve designator. It looks like you only need the latter function, and that could be moved to resolve-names-utils.{h,cpp}. I suggest you land this change without worrying about that restructuring and then I'll take a look at it in a separate change (unless you want to). | |
1191 | This function could be implement as: | |
6501 | Is it worthwhile skipping this unless -fopenacc is present? (Same with OpenMP?) | |
6855 | This return is not reachable. A better way to write this function might be: if (!name) { return nullptr; } else if (auto *prev{GetContext().scope.parent().FindCommonBlock(name->source)}) { name->symbol = prev; return prev; } else { return nullptr; } | |
7433 | Do you need to walk the tree twice for the same reason as OpenMP below? If so, can it be a single function with the visitor as a template parameter? |
Thanks for the comment @tskeith. I update the patch and added some comments.
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1085 | I agree that it should be in a separate file. As you said, it is probably better to land this and have a follow-up patch that does the separation in order to keep the patch "small" and have a better view at what is being done. Let me know if you want me to have a look at it. | |
6501 | Would make sense I guess. Is there an easy way to query which options are enabled from here? | |
7433 | I see no need to walk the tree twice (at least for the moment with the current status). Just a stupid copy-paste. I updated the code. |
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
6501 | Use SemanticsContext::IsEnabled and pass in the LanguageFeature for OpenACC or OpenMP. |
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
6501 | Thanks. I'll update the patch before landing it. |
flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
6793 | Yeah sure. I normally use it when it makes sense. Good catch from clang-tidy! |
resolve-names.cpp is already a large source file. Does the directive name resolution code have to be in there in order to use things that are local to that file? If not, maybe all the directive name resolution code could reside elsewhere.