Re: [patch] cilkplus array notation for C (clean, independent patchset, take 1)

[Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>]

> > All these builtins need to be documented in doc/.
>
> DONE!

> +initialize builtin functions are stored in @file{array-notation-common.c}.  In
> +the current array notation implementation there are 12 builtin reduction
> +operations.  Details about these functions and their usage are available in
> +the Cilk Plus language specification at @w{@uref{http://www.cilkplus.org}}.
> +
> +@itemize @bullet
> +@item __sec_reduce_add
> +@item __sec_reduce_mul
> +@item __sec_reduce_max
> +@item __sec_reduce_min
> +@item __sec_reduce_max_ind

First, the common documentation idiom is "built-in" not builtin. 
Second, these should be documented in extend.texi along with the rest of 
the builtins listed there.

> > As I'd mentioned, you have .exp files named compile.exp and execute.exp which
> > seem to be causing ambiguity problems in parallel checks (make check -jN).  For
> > some reason, with this patch, the rest of dg.exp fails to run after Cilkplus'
> > compile/execute.exp runs.  Renaming these to something less generic does the
> > trick.  Do you mind prefixing all the .exp's with "cilkplus_" or something similar?
>
> FIXED! I added the "cilkplus_AN_c_" prefix to everything, where "an" stands for Array Notation . This way it won't interfere with the future Cilk Plus patches' test case.

I think eventually all the compile tests for all of cilkplus should go 
in one directory and one for the execute tests.  There is no need for a 
separate directory for the array notation, etc, etc.  For that matter, 
we should probably munge everything into one dg style directory.  But 
this is ok for now.

> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/array_test2.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/array_test2.c
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>        array[ii] = 10;
>        array2[ii] = 5000000;
>      }
> -  array2[0:10:2] = array[0:10:2];
> +  array2[0:5:2] = array[0:5:2];

What is this non-related change?

> > If these are mere syntax error tests, I suggest you get rid of all the optimization
> > variants.  Surely there is no need to test the error at -O, then at -O2, etc.  -O0
> > should suffice.  For that matter, you shouldn't pass any optimization flag and let
> > the test itself set the flags with "// dg-options" or whatever in the test itself (if
> > for some reason you have a test that has one particular error only reportable at
> > some optimization level).
>
> I did this purely as a safety measure for the commonly used flags that I know of. If it won't cause too much of a problem I would like to keep it.

All these errors are in the front-end, so optimization shouldn't matter. 
 It just seems like over kill to run 750 tests for just 15 individual 
.c files.  We can leave this for now.

> > And please make sure there are no regressions on the branch when checking
> > with "make check -k -jN" (N > 1) and for a plain serial check-- at least while we
> > iron out this dejagnu setup.
>
> It works for make -j8 check on my 8 core machine.

I assume "make -j1" still works and has no regressions?

Can you repost an updated (and tested) patch?

Thanks.