[flang][OpenMP] Add semantics test: named COMMON + member with firstprivate+lastprivate is valid #162234
Conversation
|
@tblah didn't knew who to tag so tagged you(as related to flang just like the one you merged earlier), this PR is waiting to be reviewed and CI is all green and good to merge!! |
| @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ | |||
| ! RUN: %flang_fc1 -fopenmp -fsyntax-only %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --allow-empty | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please could you add -fopenmp-version=60 (or whichever version was the first to allow this) so that this test does not fail once the required check is added for older openmp versions.
| @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ | |||
| ! RUN: %flang_fc1 -fopenmp -fsyntax-only %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --allow-empty | |||
| ! CHECK-NOT: error: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please could you add a short comment explaining that this is a regression test to ensure this is allowed in newer openmp versions
KrxGu
force-pushed
the
flang-omp-common-fp-lp-test
branch
from
a6d387e to
36e9310
Compare
llvmbot
added
flang
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-semantics @llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-openmp Author: Krish Gupta (KrxGu) ChangesThis adds a positive semantics test showing that:
The reporter example in #162033 therefore conforms to OpenMP and Flang is correct to accept it. This test documents and locks in that behavior to avoid regressions. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/162234.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/omp-common-fp-lp.f90 b/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/omp-common-fp-lp.f90
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..ed52e76ca62ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/flang/test/Semantics/OpenMP/omp-common-fp-lp.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+! RUN: %flang_fc1 -fopenmp -fopenmp-version=51 -fsyntax-only %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --allow-empty
+! CHECK-NOT: error:
+! CHECK-NOT: warning:
+
+! Regression test for issue #162033.
+! Verify that a named COMMON block can appear in a data-sharing clause together
+! with one of its members in another clause on the same construct. This is valid
+! in OpenMP >= 5.1 because:
+! - A named COMMON in a clause is equivalent to listing all its explicit members
+! - A list item may appear in both FIRSTPRIVATE and LASTPRIVATE on the same directive
+! OpenMP 5.0 explicitly forbade this combination.
+
+subroutine sub1()
+ common /com/ j
+ j = 10
+!$omp parallel do firstprivate(j) lastprivate(/com/)
+ do i = 1, 10
+ j = j + 1
+ end do
+!$omp end parallel do
+end
|
KrxGu
force-pushed
the
flang-omp-common-fp-lp-test
branch
from
36e9310 to
346c4c0
Compare
…tprivate is valid Gate test to OpenMP 5.1+ and add explanatory comment per review feedback.
KrxGu
force-pushed
the
flang-omp-common-fp-lp-test
branch
from
346c4c0 to
7d0ee79
Compare
|
@tblah Thanks for the review! I've addressed both comments:
Note on CI fix: I also removed the CI is all green, good to merge!! |
3 participants
This adds a positive semantics test showing that:
The reporter example in #162033 therefore conforms to OpenMP and Flang is correct to accept it. This test documents and locks in that behavior to avoid regressions.
