[flang][OpenMP] Put taskgroup in a new scope #144122
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Although taskgroup is a privatizing construct, because of task_reduction clause, a new scope was not being created for it. This could cause an extra privatization of variables when taskgroup was lowered, because its scope would be the same as of the parent privatizing construct. This fixes regressions in tests 1052_0201 and 1052_0205, from Fujitsu testsuite. This issue didn't happen before because implicit symbols were being created in a different way before llvm#142154.
llvmbot
added
flang
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-semantics @llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-fir-hlfir Author: Leandro Lupori (luporl) ChangesAlthough taskgroup is a privatizing construct, because of This fixes regressions in tests 1052_0201 and 1052_0205, from This issue didn't happen before because implicit symbols were Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144122.diff 2 Files Affected:
diff --git a/flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp b/flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp
index 7db447aee0026..8aa137f603b3d 100644
--- a/flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp
+++ b/flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp
@@ -1729,7 +1729,6 @@ bool OmpVisitor::NeedsScope(const parser::OpenMPBlockConstruct &x) {
switch (beginDir.v) {
case llvm::omp::Directive::OMPD_master:
case llvm::omp::Directive::OMPD_ordered:
- case llvm::omp::Directive::OMPD_taskgroup:
return false;
default:
return true;
diff --git a/flang/test/Lower/OpenMP/taskgroup02.f90 b/flang/test/Lower/OpenMP/taskgroup02.f90
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..1e996a030c23a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/flang/test/Lower/OpenMP/taskgroup02.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+! RUN: %flang_fc1 -emit-hlfir -fopenmp -o - %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+
+! Check that variables are not privatized twice when TASKGROUP is used.
+
+!CHECK-LABEL: func.func @_QPsub() {
+!CHECK: omp.parallel {
+!CHECK: %[[PAR_I:.*]]:2 = hlfir.declare %{{.*}} {uniq_name = "_QFsubEi"}
+!CHECK: omp.master {
+!CHECK: omp.taskgroup {
+!CHECK-NEXT: omp.task private(@_QFsubEi_firstprivate_i32 %[[PAR_I]]#0 -> %[[TASK_I:.*]] : !fir.ref<i32>) {
+!CHECK: %[[TASK_I_DECL:.*]]:2 = hlfir.declare %[[TASK_I]] {uniq_name = "_QFsubEi"}
+!CHECK: }
+!CHECK: }
+!CHECK: }
+!CHECK: }
+
+subroutine sub()
+ integer, dimension(10) :: a
+ integer :: i
+
+ !$omp parallel
+ !$omp master
+ do i=1,10
+ !$omp taskgroup
+ !$omp task shared(a)
+ a(i) = 1
+ !$omp end task
+ !$omp end taskgroup
+ end do
+ !$omp end master
+ !$omp end parallel
+end subroutine
|
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-openmp Author: Leandro Lupori (luporl) ChangesAlthough taskgroup is a privatizing construct, because of This fixes regressions in tests 1052_0201 and 1052_0205, from This issue didn't happen before because implicit symbols were Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144122.diff 2 Files Affected:
diff --git a/flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp b/flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp
index 7db447aee0026..8aa137f603b3d 100644
--- a/flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp
+++ b/flang/lib/Semantics/resolve-names.cpp
@@ -1729,7 +1729,6 @@ bool OmpVisitor::NeedsScope(const parser::OpenMPBlockConstruct &x) {
switch (beginDir.v) {
case llvm::omp::Directive::OMPD_master:
case llvm::omp::Directive::OMPD_ordered:
- case llvm::omp::Directive::OMPD_taskgroup:
return false;
default:
return true;
diff --git a/flang/test/Lower/OpenMP/taskgroup02.f90 b/flang/test/Lower/OpenMP/taskgroup02.f90
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..1e996a030c23a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/flang/test/Lower/OpenMP/taskgroup02.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+! RUN: %flang_fc1 -emit-hlfir -fopenmp -o - %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+
+! Check that variables are not privatized twice when TASKGROUP is used.
+
+!CHECK-LABEL: func.func @_QPsub() {
+!CHECK: omp.parallel {
+!CHECK: %[[PAR_I:.*]]:2 = hlfir.declare %{{.*}} {uniq_name = "_QFsubEi"}
+!CHECK: omp.master {
+!CHECK: omp.taskgroup {
+!CHECK-NEXT: omp.task private(@_QFsubEi_firstprivate_i32 %[[PAR_I]]#0 -> %[[TASK_I:.*]] : !fir.ref<i32>) {
+!CHECK: %[[TASK_I_DECL:.*]]:2 = hlfir.declare %[[TASK_I]] {uniq_name = "_QFsubEi"}
+!CHECK: }
+!CHECK: }
+!CHECK: }
+!CHECK: }
+
+subroutine sub()
+ integer, dimension(10) :: a
+ integer :: i
+
+ !$omp parallel
+ !$omp master
+ do i=1,10
+ !$omp taskgroup
+ !$omp task shared(a)
+ a(i) = 1
+ !$omp end task
+ !$omp end taskgroup
+ end do
+ !$omp end master
+ !$omp end parallel
+end subroutine
|
|
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/157/builds/30911 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Although taskgroup is a privatizing construct, because of
task_reduction clause, a new scope was not being created for it.
This could cause an extra privatization of variables when
taskgroup was lowered, because its scope would be the same as of
the parent privatizing construct.
This fixes regressions in tests 1052_0201 and 1052_0205, from
Fujitsu testsuite.
This issue didn't happen before because implicit symbols were
being created in a different way before #142154.