The errors for incorrectly specified data-sharing attributes for simd
constructs must be emitted only for the explicitly provided clauses, not
the predetermined ones.
llvm-svn: 364647
The device code must use the same long double type as the host.
Otherwise the code cannot be linked and executed properly. Patch adds
only basic support and checks for supporting of the host long double
double on the device.
llvm-svn: 363717
Summary: This patch avoids the emission of maps for target link variables when unified memory is present.
Reviewers: ABataev, caomhin
Reviewed By: ABataev
Subscribers: guansong, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60883
llvm-svn: 363435
the captured region scope.
This removes a case where we would build expressions (and mark
declarations odr-used) in the wrong scope.
Remove the now-unused 'capture initializer' field on sema::Capture
(except for 'this' captures, which still need to be cleaned up).
No functionality change intended (except that we now very slightly more
precisely determine whether we need to use a capture or not when another
captured region encloses an OpenMP captured region).
llvm-svn: 362179
Instead of duplicating access to the directive stack throughout
SemaOpenMP.cpp, consolidate it to a few methods and call those
everywhere else. In passing, simplify adjacent code where possible.
No functionality change intended.
llvm-svn: 362172
Summary:
Constant evaluator does not work on value-dependent or type-dependent
expressions.
Also fixed bugs uncovered by these assertions.
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61522
llvm-svn: 361050
If the combined directive has default(none) clause and has clauses for
inner directive that reference some variables, for which data-sharing
attributes are not specified, the error messages should be emitted for
such variables.
llvm-svn: 360365
If the default(none) was specified for the construct, we might miss
diagnostic for the globals without explicitly specified data-sharing
attributes. Patch fixes this problem.
llvm-svn: 360362
This has introduced (exposed?) a crash in clang sema,
that does not happen without this patch.
I'll followup in the original bugreport and commit with reproducer.
This reverts commit r360061.
llvm-svn: 360327
This implementation isn't sound as per the standard.
It erroneously diagnoses e.g. the following case:
```
$ cat test.cpp
void f(int n) {
#pragma omp parallel default(none) if(n)
;
}
```
```
$ ./bin/clang -fopenmp test.cpp
test.cpp:2:40: error: variable 'n' must have explicitly specified data sharing attributes
#pragma omp parallel default(none) if(n)
^
test.cpp:2:31: note: explicit data sharing attribute requested here
#pragma omp parallel default(none) if(n)
^
1 error generated.
```
As per OpenMP Application Programming Interface Version 5.0 November 2018:
* 2.19.4.1default Clause
The default clause explicitly determines the data-sharing attributes of
variables that are referenced *in a parallel, teams, or task generating
construct and would otherwise be implicitly determined
(see Section 2.19.1.1 on page 270).
* 2.6.1 Determining the Number of Threads for a parallel Region
Using a variable in an if or num_threads clause expression of a parallel
construct causes an implicit reference to the variable in all enclosing
constructs. The if clause expression and the num_threads clause expression
are evaluated in the context outside of the parallel construct,
This reverts commit r360073.
llvm-svn: 360326
default(none).
If the combined directive has default(none) clause and has clauses for
inner directive that reference some variables, for which data-sharing
attributes are not specified, the error messages should be emitted for
such variables.
llvm-svn: 360073
If the `default(none)` was specified for the construct, we might miss
diagnostic for the globals without explicitly specified data-sharing
attributes. Patch fixes this problem.
llvm-svn: 360061
counters.
According to the OpenMP 5.0, For any associated loop where the b or lb
expression is not loop invariant with respect to the outermost loop, the
var-outer that appears in the expression may not have a random access
iterator type.
llvm-svn: 359340
loop nests.
Added a checks that the initializer/condition expressions depend only
only of the single previous loop iteration variable.
llvm-svn: 359200
Summary: The requires directive containing target related clauses must appear before any target region in the compilation unit.
Reviewers: ABataev, AlexEichenberger, caomhin
Reviewed By: ABataev
Subscribers: guansong, jfb, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60875
llvm-svn: 358709
According to OpenMP 5.0, 2.11.4 allocate Clause, Restrictions, allocate
clauses that appear on a target construct or on constructs in a target
region must specify an allocator expression unless a requires directive
with the dynamic_allocators clause is present in the same compilation
unit. Patch adds a check for this restriction.
llvm-svn: 357412
According to OpenMP 5.0 standard, 2.11.4 allocate Clause, Restrictions,
For any list item that is specified in the allocate clause on a
directive, a data-sharing attribute clause that may create a private
copy of that list item must be specified on the same directive. Patch
adds the checks for this restriction.
llvm-svn: 357390
target and task-based directives.
According to OpenMP 5.0, 2.11.4 allocate Clause, Restrictions, For task,
taskloop or target directives, allocation requests to memory allocators
with the trait access set to thread result in unspecified behavior.
Patch introduces a check for omp_thread_mem_alloc predefined allocator
on target- and trask-based directives.
llvm-svn: 357205
The various CorrectionCandidateCallbacks are currently heap-allocated
unconditionally. This was needed because of delayed typo correction.
However these allocations represent currently 15.4% of all allocations
(number of allocations) when parsing all of Boost (!), mostly because
of ParseCastExpression, ParseStatementOrDeclarationAfterAttrtibutes
and isCXXDeclarationSpecifier. Note that all of these callback objects
are small. Let's not do this.
Instead initially allocate the callback on the stack, and only do a
heap allocation if we are going to do some typo correction. Do this by:
1. Adding a clone function to each callback, which will do a polymorphic
clone of the callback. This clone function is required to be implemented
by every callback (of which there is a fair amount). Make sure this is
the case by making it pure virtual.
2. Use this clone function when we are going to try to correct a typo.
This additionally cut the time of -fsyntax-only on all of Boost by 0.5%
(not that much, but still something). No functional changes intended.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58827
Reviewed By: rnk
llvm-svn: 356925
dynamic_allocators.
According to the OpenMP 5.0, 2.11.3 allocate Directive, Restrictions,
allocate directives that appear in a target region must specify an
allocator clause unless a requires directive with the dynamic_allocators
clause is present in the same compilation unit. Patch adds a check for a
presence of the requires directive with the dynamic_allocators clause.
llvm-svn: 356758
clause in target region.
According to the OpenMP 5.0, 2.11.3 allocate Directive, Restrictions,
allocate directives that appear in a target region must specify an
allocator clause unless a requires directive with the dynamic_allocators
clause is present in the same compilation unit.
llvm-svn: 356752
Previously implemented check required the reevaluation of the already
evaluated predefined allocator kind for the global variables. Patch
simplifies this evaluation and removes extra code.
llvm-svn: 356699
allocators.
It is better to deduce omp_allocator_handle_t type from the predefined
allocators, because omp.h header might not define it explicitly. Plus,
it allows to identify the predefined allocators correctly when trying to
build the allcoator for the global variables.
llvm-svn: 356607
Summary:
https://www.openmp.org/wp-content/uploads/OpenMP-API-Specification-5.0.pdf, page 3:
```
structured block
For C/C++, an executable statement, possibly compound, with a single entry at the
top and a single exit at the bottom, or an OpenMP construct.
COMMENT: See Section 2.1 on page 38 for restrictions on structured
blocks.
```
```
2.1 Directive Format
Some executable directives include a structured block. A structured block:
• may contain infinite loops where the point of exit is never reached;
• may halt due to an IEEE exception;
• may contain calls to exit(), _Exit(), quick_exit(), abort() or functions with a
_Noreturn specifier (in C) or a noreturn attribute (in C/C++);
• may be an expression statement, iteration statement, selection statement, or try block, provided
that the corresponding compound statement obtained by enclosing it in { and } would be a
structured block; and
Restrictions
Restrictions to structured blocks are as follows:
• Entry to a structured block must not be the result of a branch.
• The point of exit cannot be a branch out of the structured block.
C / C++
• The point of entry to a structured block must not be a call to setjmp().
• longjmp() and throw() must not violate the entry/exit criteria.
```
Of particular note here is the fact that OpenMP structured blocks are as-if `noexcept`,
in the same sense as with the normal `noexcept` functions in C++.
I.e. if throw happens, and it attempts to travel out of the `noexcept` function
(here: out of the current structured-block), then the program terminates.
Now, one of course can say that since it is explicitly prohibited by the Specification,
then any and all programs that violate this Specification contain undefined behavior,
and are unspecified, and thus no one should care about them. Just don't write broken code /s
But i'm not sure this is a reasonable approach.
I have personally had oss-fuzz issues of this origin - exception thrown inside
of an OpenMP structured-block that is not caught, thus causing program termination.
This issue isn't all that hard to catch, it's not any particularly different from
diagnosing the same situation with the normal `noexcept` function.
Now, clang static analyzer does not presently model exceptions.
But clang-tidy has a simplisic [[ https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-exception-escape.html | bugprone-exception-escape ]] check,
and it is even refactored as a `ExceptionAnalyzer` class for reuse.
So it would be trivial to use that analyzer to check for
exceptions escaping out of OpenMP structured blocks. (D59466)
All that sounds too great to be true. Indeed, there is a caveat.
Presently, it's practically impossible to do. To check a OpenMP structured block
you need to somehow 'get' the OpenMP structured block, and you can't because
it's simply not modelled in AST. `CapturedStmt`/`CapturedDecl` is not it's representation.
Now, it is of course possible to write e.g. some AST matcher that would e.g.
match every OpenMP executable directive, and then return the whatever `Stmt` is
the structured block of said executable directive, if any.
But i said //practically//. This isn't practical for the following reasons:
1. This **will** bitrot. That matcher will need to be kept up-to-date,
and refreshed with every new OpenMP spec version.
2. Every single piece of code that would want that knowledge would need to
have such matcher. Well, okay, if it is an AST matcher, it could be shared.
But then you still have `RecursiveASTVisitor` and friends.
`2 > 1`, so now you have code duplication.
So it would be reasonable (and is fully within clang AST spirit) to not
force every single consumer to do that work, but instead store that knowledge
in the correct, and appropriate place - AST, class structure.
Now, there is another hoop we need to get through.
It isn't fully obvious //how// to model this.
The best solution would of course be to simply add a `OMPStructuredBlock` transparent
node. It would be optimal, it would give us two properties:
* Given this `OMPExecutableDirective`, what's it OpenMP structured block?
* It is trivial to check whether the `Stmt*` is a OpenMP structured block (`isa<OMPStructuredBlock>(ptr)`)
But OpenMP structured block isn't **necessarily** the first, direct child of `OMP*Directive`.
(even ignoring the clang's `CapturedStmt`/`CapturedDecl` that were inserted inbetween).
So i'm not sure whether or not we could re-create AST statements after they were already created?
There would be other costs to a new AST node: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40563#c12
```
1. You will need to break the representation of loops. The body should be replaced by the "structured block" entity.
2. You will need to support serialization/deserialization.
3. You will need to support template instantiation.
4. You will need to support codegen and take this new construct to account in each OpenMP directive.
```
Instead, there **is** an functionally-equivalent, alternative solution, consisting of two parts.
Part 1:
* Add a member function `isStandaloneDirective()` to the `OMPExecutableDirective` class,
that will tell whether this directive is stand-alone or not, as per the spec.
We need it because we can't just check for the existance of associated statements,
see code comment.
* Add a member function `getStructuredBlock()` to the OMPExecutableDirective` class itself,
that assert that this is not a stand-alone directive, and either return the correct loop body
if this is a loop-like directive, or the captured statement.
This way, given an `OMPExecutableDirective`, we can get it's structured block.
Also, since the knowledge is ingrained into the clang OpenMP implementation,
it will not cause any duplication, and //hopefully// won't bitrot.
Great we achieved 1 of 2 properties of `OMPStructuredBlock` approach.
Thus, there is a second part needed:
* How can we check whether a given `Stmt*` is `OMPStructuredBlock`?
Well, we can't really, in general. I can see this workaround:
```
class FunctionASTVisitor : public RecursiveASTVisitor<FunctionASTVisitor> {
using Base = RecursiveASTVisitor<FunctionASTVisitor>;
public:
bool VisitOMPExecDir(OMPExecDir *D) {
OmpStructuredStmts.emplace_back(D.getStructuredStmt());
}
bool VisitSOMETHINGELSE(???) {
if(InOmpStructuredStmt)
HI!
}
bool TraverseStmt(Stmt *Node) {
if (!Node)
return Base::TraverseStmt(Node);
if (OmpStructuredStmts.back() == Node)
++InOmpStructuredStmt;
Base::TraverseStmt(Node);
if (OmpStructuredStmts.back() == Node) {
OmpStructuredStmts.pop_back();
--InOmpStructuredStmt;
}
return true;
}
std::vector<Stmt*> OmpStructuredStmts;
int InOmpStructuredStmt = 0;
};
```
But i really don't see using it in practice.
It's just too intrusive; and again, requires knowledge duplication.
.. but no. The solution lies right on the ground.
Why don't we simply store this `i'm a openmp structured block` in the bitfield of the `Stmt` itself?
This does not appear to have any impact on the memory footprint of the clang AST,
since it's just a single extra bit in the bitfield. At least the static assertions don't fail.
Thus, indeed, we can achieve both of the properties without a new AST node.
We can cheaply set that bit right in sema, at the end of `Sema::ActOnOpenMPExecutableDirective()`,
by just calling the `getStructuredBlock()` that we just added.
Test coverage that demonstrates all this has been added.
This isn't as great with serialization though. Most of it does not use abbrevs,
so we do end up paying the full price (4 bytes?) instead of a single bit.
That price, of course, can be reclaimed by using abbrevs.
In fact, i suspect that //might// not just reclaim these bytes, but pack these PCH significantly.
I'm not seeing a third solution. If there is one, it would be interesting to hear about it.
("just don't write code that would require `isa<OMPStructuredBlock>(ptr)`" is not a solution.)
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40563 | PR40563 ]].
Reviewers: ABataev, rjmccall, hfinkel, rsmith, riccibruno, gribozavr
Reviewed By: ABataev, gribozavr
Subscribers: mgorny, aaron.ballman, steveire, guansong, jfb, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang, #openmp
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59214
llvm-svn: 356570
If the allocator was specified for the variable and next one is found
with the different allocator, the warning is emitted, and the allocator
is ignored.
llvm-svn: 356513
According to OpenMP, 2.11.3 allocate Directive, Restrictions, C / C++,
if a list item has a static storage type, the allocator expression in
the allocator clause must be a constant expression that evaluates to
one of the predefined memory allocator values. Added check for this
restriction.
llvm-svn: 356496
Summary:
This patch refactors several instances of cast<> used in if
conditionals. Since cast<> asserts on failure, the else branch can
never be taken.
In some cases, the fix is to replace cast<> with dyn_cast<>. While
others required the removal of the conditional and some minor
refactoring.
A discussion can be seen here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20190318/265044.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59529
llvm-svn: 356441
If the doacross lop construct is used and the loop counter is declare
outside of the loop, the compiler might crash trying to get the address
of the loop counter. Patch fixes this problem.
llvm-svn: 356198
If the declare target link global is used in the target region
indirectly (used in the inner parallel, teams, etc. regions), we may
miss this variable and it leads to incorrect codegen.
llvm-svn: 355858
This patch implements the parsing and sema support for the OpenMP
'from'-clause with potential user-defined mappers attached.
User-defined mappers are a new feature in OpenMP 5.0. A 'from'-clause
can have an explicit or implicit associated mapper, which instructs the
compiler to generate and use customized mapping functions. An example is
shown below:
struct S { int len; int *d; };
#pragma omp declare mapper(id: struct S s) map(s, s.d[0:s.len])
struct S ss;
#pragma omp target update from(mapper(id): ss) // use the mapper with name 'id' to map ss from device
Contributed-by: Lingda Li <lildmh@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58638
llvm-svn: 354817
This patch implements the parsing and sema support for OpenMP to clause
with potential user-defined mappers attached. User defined mapper is a
new feature in OpenMP 5.0. A to/from clause can have an explicit or
implicit associated mapper, which instructs the compiler to generate and
use customized mapping functions. An example is shown below:
struct S { int len; int *d; };
#pragma omp declare mapper(id: struct S s) map(s, s.d[0:s.len])
struct S ss;
#pragma omp target update to(mapper(id): ss) // use the mapper with name 'id' to map ss to device
Contributed-by: <lildmh@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58523
llvm-svn: 354698
This patch implements the parsing and sema support for OpenMP map
clauses with potential user-defined mapper attached. User defined mapper
is a new feature in OpenMP 5.0. A map clause can have an explicit or
implicit associated mapper, which instructs the compiler to generate
extra data mapping. An example is shown below:
struct S { int len; int *d; };
#pragma omp declare mapper(id: struct S s) map(s, s.d[0:s.len])
struct S ss;
#pragma omp target map(mapper(id) tofrom: ss) // use the mapper with name 'id' to map ss
Contributed-by: Lingda Li <lildmh@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58074
llvm-svn: 354347
Fixed diagnostic emission for the exceptions support in case of the
compilation of OpenMP code for the devices. From now on, it uses delayed
diagnostics mechanism, previously used for CUDA only. It allow to
diagnose not allowed used of exceptions only in functions that are going
to be codegen'ed.
llvm-svn: 353542
It is important to delay the emission of the diagnostic messages for the
functions unless it is proved that the function is going to be used on
the device side. It is required to support compilation with some of the
target-specific system headers.
llvm-svn: 353540
The fix is to issue error messages if there are more than one
teams construct inside a target constructs.
#pragma omp target
{
#pragma omp teams
{ ... }
#pragma omp teams
{ ... }
}
llvm-svn: 353186
edge cases.
Currently, EmitCall emits a call instruction with a function type
derived from the pointee-type of the callee. This *should* be the same
as the type created from the CallInfo parameter, but in some cases an
incorrect CallInfo was being passed.
All of these fixes were discovered by the addition of the assert in
EmitCall which verifies that the passed-in CallInfo matches the
Callee's function type.
As far as I know, these issues caused no bugs at the moment, as the
correct types were ultimately being emitted. But, some would become
problematic when pointee types are removed.
List of fixes:
* arrangeCXXConstructorCall was passing an incorrect value for the
number of Required args, when calling an inheriting constructor
where the inherited constructor is variadic. (The inheriting
constructor doesn't actually get passed any of the user's args, but
the code was calculating it as if it did).
* arrangeFreeFunctionLikeCall was not including the count of the
pass_object_size arguments in the count of required args.
* OpenCL uses other address spaces for the "this" pointer. However,
commonEmitCXXMemberOrOperatorCall was not annotating the address
space on the "this" argument of the call.
* Destructor calls were being created with EmitCXXMemberOrOperatorCall
instead of EmitCXXDestructorCall in a few places. This was a problem
because the calling convention sometimes has destructors returning
"this" rather than void, and the latter function knows about that,
and sets up the types properly (through calling
arrangeCXXStructorDeclaration), while the former does not.
* generateObjCGetterBody: the 'objc_getProperty' function returns type
'id', but was being called as if it returned the particular
property's type. (That is of course the *dynamic* return type, and
there's a downcast immediately after.)
* OpenMP user-defined reduction functions (#pragma omp declare
reduction) can be called with a subclass of the declared type. In
such case, the call was being setup as if the function had been
actually declared to take the subtype, rather than the base type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57664
llvm-svn: 353181
