This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: libcpp: registering both a pragma and a pragma namespace with the same name


On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Tom.  Hi folks.
>
> We've asked Balaji to rewrite the <#pragma simd> handling for cilkplus as we
> currently do for OMP, etc, in init_pragma().
>
> The cilkplus branch currently has something like:
>
>       cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, "simd", "",
>                                   PRAGMA_SIMD_EMPTY, true, false);
>       cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, "simd", "assert",
>                                     PRAGMA_SIMD_ASSERT, true, false);
>       cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, "simd", "noassert",
>                                     PRAGMA_SIMD_NOASSERT, true, false);
>       cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, "simd", "vectorlength",
>                                     PRAGMA_SIMD_VECTORLENGTH, true, false);

What about just registering simd as the pragma and then look for the
right keyword after that?  Like diagnostic is handled?

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

>
> Notice that #pragma simd can be both a pragma name space, and also a lone
> pragma with no arguments:
>
>         #pragma simd assert
>                 -or-
>         #pragma simd
>
> It seems like the code in libcpp's do_pragma(), specifically disallows this.
> If we're looking at a possible pragma name space, the next expected token is
> a CPP_NAME.
>
> Is there a way to handle this scenario with the current infrastructure?  If
> not, is something like the attached (untested) patch reasonable?
>
> Aldy

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Tom.  Hi folks.
>
> We've asked Balaji to rewrite the <#pragma simd> handling for cilkplus as we
> currently do for OMP, etc, in init_pragma().
>
> The cilkplus branch currently has something like:
>
>       cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, "simd", "",
>                                   PRAGMA_SIMD_EMPTY, true, false);
>       cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, "simd", "assert",
>                                     PRAGMA_SIMD_ASSERT, true, false);
>       cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, "simd", "noassert",
>                                     PRAGMA_SIMD_NOASSERT, true, false);
>       cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, "simd", "vectorlength",
>                                     PRAGMA_SIMD_VECTORLENGTH, true, false);
>
> Notice that #pragma simd can be both a pragma name space, and also a lone
> pragma with no arguments:
>
>         #pragma simd assert
>                 -or-
>         #pragma simd
>
> It seems like the code in libcpp's do_pragma(), specifically disallows this.
> If we're looking at a possible pragma name space, the next expected token is
> a CPP_NAME.
>
> Is there a way to handle this scenario with the current infrastructure?  If
> not, is something like the attached (untested) patch reasonable?
>
> Aldy


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]