[C/C++, OpenACC] Reject vars of different scope in acc declare (PR94120)

[H.J. Lu]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 12:55 AM Tobias Burnus <tobias@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> I have now committed this patch
> as r10-7614-g13e41d8b9d3d7598c72c38acc86a3d97046c8373,

On Linux/x86, I got

FAIL: g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C  -std=c++14 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C  -std=c++17 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C  -std=c++2a (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C  -std=c++98 (test for excess errors)

> reading "so we shall accept it" as approval …
>
> On 4/1/20 9:07 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> > Even if the ICE is then fixed, should we still keep
> > <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR94120> open (with a note) until
> > <https://github.com/OpenACC/openacc-spec/issues/288> is
> > resolved/published?
>
> I decided to close it and mention the namelist issue and
> the now-fixed PR in PR84140 (which is about (non)static
> class member variables, which is also covered in Issue 288).
>
> > Regarding the C/C++ patch you posted: I'm not at all familiar with the
> > front ends' scoping implementation.  But, given that your patch really
> > only touches the OpenACC 'declare' code paths, it can't cause any harm
> > otherwise, so we shall accept it.  Maybe Jakub has any comments, though?
>
> >>> +c_check_oacc_same_scope (tree decl)
> >> Is the function really specific to OpenACC? If not, then "_oacc"
> >> could be dropped from its name. How about "c_check_current_scope"?
> > Yeah, that may be a good idea.  Similar constructs seem to be used in a
> > few other places, though without the 'DECL_NAME' indirection.
>
> I now use c_check_in_current_scope.
>
> Tobias
> -----------------
> Mentor Graphics (Deutschland) GmbH, Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München / Germany
> Registergericht München HRB 106955, Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Alexander Walter



-- 
H.J.