For `map`, the following restriction changed in OpenMP 5.0:
* OpenMP 4.5 [2.15.5.1, Restrictions]: "A list item cannot appear in
both a map clause and a data-sharing attribute clause on the same
construct.
* OpenMP 5.0 [2.19.7.1, Restrictions]: "A list item cannot appear in
both a map clause and a data-sharing attribute clause on the same
construct unless the construct is a combined construct."
This patch removes this restriction in the case of combined constructs
and OpenMP 5.0, and it updates Sema not to capture a scalar by copy in
the target region when `firstprivate` and `map` appear for that scalar
on a combined target construct.
This patch also adds a fixme to a test that now reveals that a
diagnostic about loop iteration variables is dropped in the case of
OpenMP 5.0. That bug exists regardless of this patch's changes.
Reviewed By: ABataev, jdoerfert, hfinkel, kkwli0
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835
llvm-svn: 369619
If the function is marked as declare target in a standalone directive,
the delayed diagnostics is not emitted. Patch fixes this problem.
llvm-svn: 369432
target.
According to OpenMP 5.0, if a lambda declaration and definition appears between a declare target directive and the matching end declare target directive, all variables that are captured by the lambda expression must also appear in a to clause.
llvm-svn: 369146
Now that we've moved to C++14, we no longer need the llvm::make_unique
implementation from STLExtras.h. This patch is a mechanical replacement
of (hopefully) all the llvm::make_unique instances across the monorepo.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66259
llvm-svn: 368942
Added basic support for non-rectangular loops. It requires an additional
analysis of min/max boundaries for non-rectangular loops. Since only
linear dependency is allowed, we can do this analysis.
llvm-svn: 368903
Summary:
Added support for basic analysis of the linear variables and linear step
expression. Linear loop iteration variables must be excluded from this
analysis, only non-loop iteration variables must be analyzed.
Reviewers: NoQ
Subscribers: guansong, cfe-commits, caomhin, kkwli0
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65461
llvm-svn: 368295
If the threadprivate variable is used in the copyin clause on inner
parallel directive with TLS support, we capture this variable in all
outer OpenMP scopes. It leads to the fact that in all scopes we're
working with the original variable, not the threadprivate copies.
llvm-svn: 366483
variables.
Loop control variables are private in loop-based constructs and we shall
take this into account when generate the code for inner constructs.
Currently, those variables are reported as shared in many cases. Moved
the analysis of the data-sharing attributes of the loop control variable
to an early semantic stage to correctly handle their attributes.
llvm-svn: 366474
checkDecl is only valid for VarDecls or FieldDecls, since getCanonicalDecl
expects only these. Prevent other Decl kinds (such as CXXMethodDecls and
EnumConstantDecls) from entering and asserting.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64842
llvm-svn: 366336
Fixed the processing of the unsupported VLAs in the reduction clauses.
Used targetDiag if the diagnostics can be delayed and emit it
immediately if the target does not support VLAs and we're parsing target
directive with the reduction clauses.
llvm-svn: 365821
Previously, lambda captures were processed in the function called during
capturing the variables. It leads to the recursive functions calls and
may result in the compiler crash.
llvm-svn: 364820
If the variable is used in the OpenMP region implicitly, we need to
check the data-sharing attributes for such variables and generate
implicit clauses for them. Patch improves analysis of such variables for
better handling of data-sharing rules.
llvm-svn: 364683
Fixed handling of the data-sharing attributes for static members when
requesting top most attribute. Previously, it might return the incorrect
attributes for static members if they were overriden in the outer
constructs.
llvm-svn: 364655
According to the OpenMP 5.0 standard, the loop iteration variable in the associated
for-loop of a simd construct with just one associated for-loop may be
listed in a private, lastprivate, or linear clause with a linear-step
that is the increment of the associated for-loop. Also, the loop
teration variables in the associated for-loops of a simd construct with
multiple associated for-loops may be listed in a private or lastprivate
clause.
llvm-svn: 364650
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
Joel E. Denny