Re: [gomp4] Fix some broken tests

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan at acm dot org>]

On 11/11/15 09:50, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 05:40 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > On 11/10/15 18:08, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
> > > On 11/10/2015 12:35 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > > > I've committed this to  gomp4.  In preparing the reworked firstprivate
> > > > patch changes for gomp4's gimplify.c I discovered these testcases were
> > > > passing by accident, and lacked a data clause.
> > >
> > > It used to be if a reduction was on a parallel construct, the gimplifier
> > > would introduce a pcopy clause for the reduction variable if it was not
> > > associated with any data clause. Is that not the case anymore?
> >
> > AFAICT, the std doesn't specify that behaviour.   2.6 'Data Environment'
> > doesn't mention reductions as a modifier for implicitly determined data
> > attributes.
>
> I guess I was confused because the reduction section in 2.5.11 mentions
> something about updating the original reduction variable after the
> parallel region.

I think that still relies on a copy clause to transfer the liveness of the 
original variable into and out of the region.  (that's the implication of what 
2.6 says)

nathan