Re: XFAIL 'offloading_enabled' diagnostics issue in 'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c' [PR101551] (was: Enhance '_Pragma' diagnostics verification in OMP C/C++ test cases)
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:10 AM Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 12.07.22 13:50, Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 2:33 AM Thomas Schwinge
> > wrote:
> >> On 2022-07-11T11:27:12+0200, I wrote:
> >>> Oh my, PR101551 "[offloading] Differences in diagnostics etc."
> >>> strikes again... The latter two 'note' diagnostics are currently
> >>> only emitted in non-offloading configurations. I've now pushed to
> >>> master branch commit 3723aedaad20a129741c2f6f3c22b3dd1220a3fc
> >>> "XFAIL 'offloading_enabled' diagnostics issue in
> >>> 'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c' [PR101551]", see attached.
> > Would you mind please confirming how I need to run configure in order
> > to get this configuration? Then I can look into why the difference in
> > location information there. Thanks.
>
> I think the simplest to replicate it without much effort is to run:
>
> cd ${GCC-SRC}/gcc
> sed -e 's/ENABLE_OFFLOADING/true/' *.cc */*.cc
>
> I think that covers all cases, which do not need the target lto1.
> If they do do - then it becomes more difficult as you need an
> offloading compiler. (But that is rather about: diagnostic or
> no diagostic and not about having a different diagnostic.)
>
> I think the different diagnostic has the reason stated in
> commit r12-135-gbd7ebe9da745a62184052dd1b15f4dd10fbdc9f4
>
> Namely:
> cut---
> It turned out that a compiler built without offloading support
> and one with can produce slightly different diagnostic.
>
> Offloading support implies ENABLE_OFFLOAD which implies that
> g->have_offload is set when offloading is actually needed.
> In cgraphunit.c, the latter causes flag_generate_offload = 1,
> which in turn affects tree.c's free_lang_data.
>
> The result is that the front-end specific diagnostic gets reset
> ('tree_diagnostics_defaults (global_dc)'), which affects in this
> case 'Warning' vs. 'warning' via the Fortran frontend.
>
> Result: 'Warning:' vs. 'warning:'.
> Side note: Other FE also override the diagnostic, leading to
> similar differences, e.g. the C++ FE outputs mangled function
> names differently
> cut--
>
> If the message is from the offload-device's lto1 compiler, it
> becomes more difficult to configure+build GCC. See
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Offloading under
> "How to build an offloading-enabled GCC"
>
> I hope it helps.
Yes, very much, thank you. I am trying something that should improve
it, and also a similar issue that happens with -flto, I made this PR
about the latter: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106274
Re: XFAIL 'offloading_enabled' diagnostics issue in 'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c' [PR101551] (was: Enhance '_Pragma' diagnostics verification in OMP C/C++ test cases)
Hi,
On 12.07.22 13:50, Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 2:33 AM Thomas Schwinge wrote:
On 2022-07-11T11:27:12+0200, I wrote:
Oh my, PR101551 "[offloading] Differences in diagnostics etc."
strikes again... The latter two 'note' diagnostics are currently
only emitted in non-offloading configurations. I've now pushed to
master branch commit 3723aedaad20a129741c2f6f3c22b3dd1220a3fc
"XFAIL 'offloading_enabled' diagnostics issue in
'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c' [PR101551]", see attached.
Would you mind please confirming how I need to run configure in order
to get this configuration? Then I can look into why the difference in
location information there. Thanks.
I think the simplest to replicate it without much effort is to run:
cd ${GCC-SRC}/gcc
sed -e 's/ENABLE_OFFLOADING/true/' *.cc */*.cc
I think that covers all cases, which do not need the target lto1.
If they do do - then it becomes more difficult as you need an
offloading compiler. (But that is rather about: diagnostic or
no diagostic and not about having a different diagnostic.)
I think the different diagnostic has the reason stated in
commit r12-135-gbd7ebe9da745a62184052dd1b15f4dd10fbdc9f4
Namely:
cut---
It turned out that a compiler built without offloading support
and one with can produce slightly different diagnostic.
Offloading support implies ENABLE_OFFLOAD which implies that
g->have_offload is set when offloading is actually needed.
In cgraphunit.c, the latter causes flag_generate_offload = 1,
which in turn affects tree.c's free_lang_data.
The result is that the front-end specific diagnostic gets reset
('tree_diagnostics_defaults (global_dc)'), which affects in this
case 'Warning' vs. 'warning' via the Fortran frontend.
Result: 'Warning:' vs. 'warning:'.
Side note: Other FE also override the diagnostic, leading to
similar differences, e.g. the C++ FE outputs mangled function
names differently
cut--
If the message is from the offload-device's lto1 compiler, it
becomes more difficult to configure+build GCC. See
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Offloading under
"How to build an offloading-enabled GCC"
I hope it helps.
Tobias
-
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas
Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht
München, HRB 106955
Re: XFAIL 'offloading_enabled' diagnostics issue in 'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c' [PR101551] (was: Enhance '_Pragma' diagnostics verification in OMP C/C++ test cases)
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 2:33 AM Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 2022-07-11T11:27:12+0200, I wrote:
> > [...], I've just pushed to master branch
> > commit 06b2a2abe26554c6f9365676683d67368cbba206
> > "Enhance '_Pragma' diagnostics verification in OMP C/C++ test cases"
>
> > --- a/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c
> > +++ b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c
> > @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ const int n = 100;
> > #define check_reduction(gwv_par, gwv_loop) \
> >{ \
> >s1 = 2; s2 = 5;\
> > -DO_PRAGMA (acc parallel gwv_par copy (s1, s2)) \
> > +DO_PRAGMA (acc parallel gwv_par copy (s1, s2)) /* { dg-line DO_PRAGMA_loc
> > } */ \
> > DO_PRAGMA (acc loop gwv_loop reduction (+:s1, s2)) \
> > for (i = 0; i < n; i++) \
> >{ \
> > @@ -45,8 +45,10 @@ main (void)
> >
> >/* Nvptx targets require a vector_length or 32 in to allow spinlocks with
> > gangs. */
> > - check_reduction (num_workers (nw) vector_length (vl), worker);
> > - /* { dg-warning "region is vector partitioned but does not contain
> > vector partitioned code" "test1" { target *-*-* } pragma_loc } */
> > + check_reduction (num_workers (nw) vector_length (vl), worker); /* {
> > dg-line check_reduction_loc }
> > + /* { dg-warning "22:region is vector partitioned but does not contain
> > vector partitioned code" "" { target *-*-* } pragma_loc }
> > + { dg-note "1:in expansion of macro 'DO_PRAGMA'" "" { target *-*-* }
> > DO_PRAGMA_loc }
> > + { dg-note "3:in expansion of macro 'check_reduction'" "" { target
> > *-*-* } check_reduction_loc } */
>
> Oh my, PR101551 "[offloading] Differences in diagnostics etc."
> strikes again... The latter two 'note' diagnostics are currently
> only emitted in non-offloading configurations. I've now pushed to
> master branch commit 3723aedaad20a129741c2f6f3c22b3dd1220a3fc
> "XFAIL 'offloading_enabled' diagnostics issue in
> 'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c' [PR101551]", see attached.
>
Would you mind please confirming how I need to run configure in order
to get this configuration? Then I can look into why the difference in
location information there. Thanks
-Lewis
XFAIL 'offloading_enabled' diagnostics issue in 'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c' [PR101551] (was: Enhance '_Pragma' diagnostics verification in OMP C/C++ test cases)
Hi!
On 2022-07-11T11:27:12+0200, I wrote:
> [...], I've just pushed to master branch
> commit 06b2a2abe26554c6f9365676683d67368cbba206
> "Enhance '_Pragma' diagnostics verification in OMP C/C++ test cases"
> --- a/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c
> +++ b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ const int n = 100;
> #define check_reduction(gwv_par, gwv_loop) \
>{ \
>s1 = 2; s2 = 5;\
> -DO_PRAGMA (acc parallel gwv_par copy (s1, s2)) \
> +DO_PRAGMA (acc parallel gwv_par copy (s1, s2)) /* { dg-line DO_PRAGMA_loc }
> */ \
> DO_PRAGMA (acc loop gwv_loop reduction (+:s1, s2)) \
> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) \
>{ \
> @@ -45,8 +45,10 @@ main (void)
>
>/* Nvptx targets require a vector_length or 32 in to allow spinlocks with
> gangs. */
> - check_reduction (num_workers (nw) vector_length (vl), worker);
> - /* { dg-warning "region is vector partitioned but does not contain vector
> partitioned code" "test1" { target *-*-* } pragma_loc } */
> + check_reduction (num_workers (nw) vector_length (vl), worker); /* {
> dg-line check_reduction_loc }
> + /* { dg-warning "22:region is vector partitioned but does not contain
> vector partitioned code" "" { target *-*-* } pragma_loc }
> + { dg-note "1:in expansion of macro 'DO_PRAGMA'" "" { target *-*-* }
> DO_PRAGMA_loc }
> + { dg-note "3:in expansion of macro 'check_reduction'" "" { target *-*-*
> } check_reduction_loc } */
Oh my, PR101551 "[offloading] Differences in diagnostics etc."
strikes again... The latter two 'note' diagnostics are currently
only emitted in non-offloading configurations. I've now pushed to
master branch commit 3723aedaad20a129741c2f6f3c22b3dd1220a3fc
"XFAIL 'offloading_enabled' diagnostics issue in
'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c' [PR101551]", see attached.
Grüße
Thomas
-
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas
Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht
München, HRB 106955
>From 3723aedaad20a129741c2f6f3c22b3dd1220a3fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 08:17:37 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] XFAIL 'offloading_enabled' diagnostics issue in
'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c' [PR101551]
Fix-up for recent commit 06b2a2abe26554c6f9365676683d67368cbba206
"Enhance '_Pragma' diagnostics verification in OMP C/C++ test cases".
Supposedly it's the same issue as in
, where I'd
noted that:
| [...] with an offloading-enabled build of GCC we're losing
| "note: in expansion of macro '[...]'" diagnostics.
| (Effectively '-ftrack-macro-expansion=0'?)
PR middle-end/101551
libgomp/
* testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c: XFAIL
'offloading_enabled' diagnostics issue.
---
libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c | 7 ---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c
index 72094609f0f..ddccfe89e73 100644
--- a/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c
+++ b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-5.c
@@ -45,10 +45,11 @@ main (void)
/* Nvptx targets require a vector_length or 32 in to allow spinlocks with
gangs. */
- check_reduction (num_workers (nw) vector_length (vl), worker); /* { dg-line check_reduction_loc }
+ check_reduction (num_workers (nw) vector_length (vl), worker); /* { dg-line check_reduction_loc } */
/* { dg-warning "22:region is vector partitioned but does not contain vector partitioned code" "" { target *-*-* } pragma_loc }
- { dg-note "1:in expansion of macro 'DO_PRAGMA'" "" { target *-*-* } DO_PRAGMA_loc }
- { dg-note "3:in expansion of macro 'check_reduction'" "" { target *-*-* } check_reduction_loc } */
+ { dg-note "1:in expansion of macro 'DO_PRAGMA'" "" { target *-*-* xfail offloading_enabled } DO_PRAGMA_loc }
+ { dg-note "3:in expansion of macro 'check_reduction'" "" { target *-*-* xfail offloading_enabled } check_reduction_loc }
+ TODO See PR101551 for 'offloading_enabled' XFAILs. */
check_reduction (vector_length (vl), vector);
check_reduction (num_gangs (ng) num_workers (nw) vector_length (vl), gang
worker vector);
--
2.35.1
