Re: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?

[Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>]

Hi!

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:01:09 +0200, I wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 11:36:03 +0200, I wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:08:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:22PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > > On 12/09/2015 05:24 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > > >how about we split up gcc/omp-low.c into several
> > > > >files?  Would it make sense (I have not yet looked in detail) to do so
> > > > >along the borders of the several passes defined therein?
> 
> > > > I suspect a split along the ompexp/omplow boundary would be quite easy to
> > > > achieve.

> > And possibly some kind of omp-simd.c, and omp-checking.c, and so
> > on, if feasible.
> 
> Not yet looked into these.

..., and here they are: word-diff patches creating omp-diagnostics.c and
omp-simd.c, 0001-new-file-gcc-omp-diagnostics.c.patch.xz and
0002-new-file-gcc-omp-simd.c.patch.xz.  The former contains the
"diagnose_omp_blocks" pass and the latter the "simdclone" pass, with the
respective supporting code.  I will certainly submit line-diff patches if
we agree that this is sound -- these two may actually be good candidates
to do first, individually, and do that now, because they're completely
self-contained.  Makes sense?

Should possibly rename omp-simd.c to omp-simd-clone.c to make it clear
that's the only thing it does, the "simdclone" pass?

Should we maybe rename omp-diagnostics.c to omp-structured-blocks.c, and
really only have it contain that "diagnose_omp_blocks" pass, or should we
move other diagnostic stuff like check_omp_nesting_restrictions into that
file, too?

One //OMPTODO:

    --- gcc/omp-low.h
    +++ gcc/omp-low.h
    @@ -95,0 +96,11 @@ extern gimple *build_omp_barrier (tree);
    +//OMPTODO: moved from omp-low.c.  Renamed from WALK_SUBSTMTS to OMP_WALK_SUBSTMTS because of the very generic name.  Used in omp-low.c and omp-diagnostics.c.  Alternatively, WALK_SUBSTMTS should perhaps simply be duplicated in the two files?
    +#define OMP_WALK_SUBSTMTS  \
    +    case GIMPLE_BIND: \
    +    case GIMPLE_TRY: \
    +    case GIMPLE_CATCH: \
    +    case GIMPLE_EH_FILTER: \
    +    case GIMPLE_TRANSACTION: \
    +      /* The sub-statements for these should be walked.  */ \
    +      *handled_ops_p = false; \
    +      break;

Instead of that, duplicate WALK_SUBSTMTS into both omp-low.c and
omp-diagnostics.c?


GrÃÃe
 Thomas

Attachment: 0001-new-file-gcc-omp-diagnostics.c.patch.xz
Description: application/xz

Attachment: 0002-new-file-gcc-omp-simd.c.patch.xz
Description: application/xz