Re: [buildrobot] OMP: r203408 probably needs another operator& returning bool

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>]

Hi!

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 02:44:16PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> The recent change probably gave us this[1]:
> 
> g++ -c  -DIN_GCC_FRONTEND -DIN_GCC_FRONTEND -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE  -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -fno-common  -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -Ic-family -I../../../../gcc/gcc -I../../../../gcc/gcc/c-family -I../../../../gcc/gcc/../include -I../../../../gcc/gcc/../libcpp/include  -I../../../../gcc/gcc/../libdecnumber -I../../../../gcc/gcc/../libdecnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber -I../../../../gcc/gcc/../libbacktrace    -o c-family/c-omp.o -MT c-family/c-omp.o -MMD -MP -MF c-family/.deps/c-omp.TPo ../../../../gcc/gcc/c-family/c-omp.c
> ../../../../gcc/gcc/c-family/c-omp.c: In function âvoid c_omp_split_clauses(location_t, tree_code, omp_clause_mask, tree, tree_node**)â:
> ../../../../gcc/gcc/c-family/c-omp.c:634:12: error: could not convert âmask.omp_clause_mask::operator&(omp_clause_mask(1ul).omp_clause_mask::operator<<(22))â from âomp_clause_maskâ to âboolâ
>    if (mask & (OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_1 << PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_NUM_THREADS))
>             ^

The original omp_clause_mask fallback was tested, but since then several
changes have been made and I forgot to retest it; when HOST_WIDE_INT is
64-bit omp_clause_mask is a normal unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT and no C++
stuff is used to emulate 64-bit bitmask.

I have tested two different versions of a fix for this, dunno which one is
preferrable, Jason?

With the operator bool (), there is ambiguity in the
if (((mask >> something) & 1) == 0)
tests (so had to use OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_{1,0} instead of {1,0}), another
possibility is not to add operator bool () overload that introduces that
ambiguity, but then if (mask & something) needs to be replaced with
if ((mask & something) != 0) and operator != (int) added.
I guess I slightly prefer the first patch since it is smaller.

	Jakub

Attachment: X995a
Description: Text document

Attachment: X995
Description: Text document