Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Allow parenthesized initialization in for-loops
On 05/10/2016 03:28 PM, Ilya Verbin wrote:
What about (some_class i { 0 }; some_class < ...; some_class++)
and similar syntax?
It's allowed, thanks, I missed this in the initial patch.
The testsuite coverage is insufficient (nothing e.g.
tests templates or #pragma simd).
Patch is updated. Is it sufficient now?
- if (!CLASS_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (decl))
- && !type_dependent_expression_p (decl))
+ if (!is_class && !type_dependent_expression_p (decl))
goto non_class;
}
-
+
cp_finish_decl (decl, init, !is_non_constant_init,
asm_specification,
LOOKUP_ONLYCONVERTING);
orig_init = init;
- if (CLASS_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (decl)))
+ if (is_class)
This change is wrong; do_auto_deduction will have changed TREE_TYPE
(decl), so it could be a class now.
+ else if (is_cilk && next_is_op_paren)
+ {
+ cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_OPEN_PAREN, RT_OPEN_PAREN);
+ init = cp_parser_assignment_expression (parser);
+ cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_CLOSE_PAREN, RT_CLOSE_PAREN);
+ goto non_class;
+ }
+ else if (is_cilk && next_is_eq)
+ {
+ bool braced = false;
+ cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_EQ, RT_EQ);
+ if (cp_lexer_next_token_is (parser->lexer, CPP_OPEN_BRACE))
+ {
+ braced = true;
+ cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_OPEN_BRACE, RT_OPEN_BRACE);
+ }
+ init = cp_parser_assignment_expression (parser);
+ if (braced)
+ cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_CLOSE_BRACE, RT_CLOSE_BRACE);
+ goto non_class;
+ }
+ else if (is_cilk && next_is_op_brace)
+ {
+ cp_lexer_set_source_position (parser->lexer);
+ maybe_warn_cpp0x (CPP0X_INITIALIZER_LISTS);
+ cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_OPEN_BRACE, RT_OPEN_BRACE);
+ init = cp_parser_assignment_expression (parser);
+ cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_CLOSE_BRACE, RT_CLOSE_BRACE);
+ goto non_class;
+ }
Why not use cp_parser_initializer for scalars?
Jason
Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Allow parenthesized initialization in for-loops
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 18:23:23 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 15:58:18 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 05:45:52PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > > www.cilkplus.org/sites/default/files/open_specifications/Intel_Cilk_plus_lang_spec_1.2.htm
> > > says:
> > > In C++, the control variable shall be declared and initialized within
> > > the
> > > initialization clause of the _Cilk_for loop. The variable shall have
> > > automatic
> > > storage duration. The variable shall be initialized. Initialization may
> > > be
> > > explicit, using assignment or constructor syntax, or implicit via a
> > > nontrivial
> > > default constructor.
> > >
> > > This patch enables constructor-syntax initialization.
> > > Bootstraped and regtested on x86_64-linux. OK for stage1?
> >
> > Does this affect just _Cilk_for or also #pragma simd?
>
> It affects both.
>
> > What about (some_class i { 0 }; some_class < ...; some_class++)
> > and similar syntax?
>
> It's allowed, thanks, I missed this in the initial patch.
>
> > The testsuite coverage is insufficient (nothing e.g.
> > tests templates or #pragma simd).
>
> Patch is updated. Is it sufficient now?
>
>
> gcc/cp/
> * parser.c (cp_parser_omp_for_loop_init): Allow constructor syntax in
> Cilk Plus for-loop initialization.
> gcc/testsuite/
> * g++.dg/cilk-plus/CK/for2.cc: New test.
> * g++.dg/cilk-plus/for5.C: New test.
Ping.
-- Ilya
Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Allow parenthesized initialization in for-loops
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 15:58:18 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 05:45:52PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > www.cilkplus.org/sites/default/files/open_specifications/Intel_Cilk_plus_lang_spec_1.2.htm
> > says:
> > In C++, the control variable shall be declared and initialized within the
> > initialization clause of the _Cilk_for loop. The variable shall have
> > automatic
> > storage duration. The variable shall be initialized. Initialization may be
> > explicit, using assignment or constructor syntax, or implicit via a
> > nontrivial
> > default constructor.
> >
> > This patch enables constructor-syntax initialization.
> > Bootstraped and regtested on x86_64-linux. OK for stage1?
>
> Does this affect just _Cilk_for or also #pragma simd?
It affects both.
> What about (some_class i { 0 }; some_class < ...; some_class++)
> and similar syntax?
It's allowed, thanks, I missed this in the initial patch.
> The testsuite coverage is insufficient (nothing e.g.
> tests templates or #pragma simd).
Patch is updated. Is it sufficient now?
gcc/cp/
* parser.c (cp_parser_omp_for_loop_init): Allow constructor syntax in
Cilk Plus for-loop initialization.
gcc/testsuite/
* g++.dg/cilk-plus/CK/for2.cc: New test.
* g++.dg/cilk-plus/for5.C: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c
index cd09de6..e481c0c 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
@@ -33284,62 +33284,74 @@ cp_parser_omp_for_loop_init (cp_parser *parser,
if (declarator == cp_error_declarator)
cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_statement (parser);
-
else
{
tree pushed_scope, auto_node;
+ bool is_cilk, is_class, next_is_semicol, next_is_eq, next_is_op_paren,
+ next_is_op_brace;
decl = start_decl (declarator, _specifiers,
SD_INITIALIZED, attributes,
/*prefix_attributes=*/NULL_TREE,
_scope);
+ is_class = CLASS_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (decl));
auto_node = type_uses_auto (TREE_TYPE (decl));
- if (cp_lexer_next_token_is_not (parser->lexer, CPP_EQ))
+ is_cilk = code == CILK_SIMD || code == CILK_FOR;
+ next_is_semicol
+ = cp_lexer_next_token_is (parser->lexer, CPP_SEMICOLON);
+ next_is_op_paren
+ = cp_lexer_next_token_is (parser->lexer, CPP_OPEN_PAREN);
+ next_is_op_brace
+ = cp_lexer_next_token_is (parser->lexer, CPP_OPEN_BRACE);
+ next_is_eq = cp_lexer_next_token_is (parser->lexer, CPP_EQ);
+
+ if (!is_cilk && next_is_op_paren)
{
- if (cp_lexer_next_token_is (parser->lexer,
- CPP_OPEN_PAREN))
- {
- if (code != CILK_SIMD && code != CILK_FOR)
- error ("parenthesized initialization is not allowed in "
- "OpenMP % loop");
- else
- error ("parenthesized initialization is "
- "not allowed in for-loop");
- }
- else
- /* Trigger an error. */
- cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_EQ, RT_EQ);
-
+ error ("parenthesized initialization is not allowed in "
+"OpenMP % loop");
init = error_mark_node;
cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_statement (parser);
}
- else if (CLASS_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (decl))
- || type_dependent_expression_p (decl)
- || auto_node)
+ else if (!is_cilk && !next_is_eq)
+ {
+ /* Trigger an error. */
+ cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_EQ, RT_EQ);
+ init = error_mark_node;
+ cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_statement (parser);
+ }
+ else if (is_cilk && !(next_is_eq || next_is_op_paren
+ || next_is_op_brace || next_is_semicol))
+ {
+ cp_parser_error (parser, "expected %<=%>, %<(%>, %<{%> or %<;%>");
+ init = error_mark_node;
+ cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_statement (parser);
+ }
+ else if (is_class || type_dependent_expression_p (decl) || auto_node)
{
bool is_direct_init, is_non_constant_init;
- init = cp_parser_initializer (parser,
- _direct_init,
- _non_constant_init);
-
+ if (is_cilk && next_is_semicol)
+ init = NULL_TREE;
+ else
+ init = cp_parser_initializer (parser,
+ _direct_init,
+ _non_constant_init);
if (auto_node)
{
TREE_TYPE (decl)
= do_auto_deduction (TREE_TYPE
Re: [PATCH][CilkPlus] Allow parenthesized initialization in for-loops
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 05:45:52PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> www.cilkplus.org/sites/default/files/open_specifications/Intel_Cilk_plus_lang_spec_1.2.htm
> says:
> In C++, the control variable shall be declared and initialized within the
> initialization clause of the _Cilk_for loop. The variable shall have
> automatic
> storage duration. The variable shall be initialized. Initialization may be
> explicit, using assignment or constructor syntax, or implicit via a
> nontrivial
> default constructor.
>
> This patch enables constructor-syntax initialization.
> Bootstraped and regtested on x86_64-linux. OK for stage1?
Does this affect just _Cilk_for or also #pragma simd? What about
(some_class i { 0 }; some_class < ...; some_class++)
and similar syntax? The testsuite coverage is insufficient (nothing e.g.
tests templates or #pragma simd).
Jakub
