Add `notify-type` to `iso_fortran_env` module. Add `notify-wait-stmt` to
the parser and add checks for constraints on the statement, `C1177` and
`C1178`, from the Fortran 2023 standard. Add three semantics tests for
`notify-wait-stmt`.
Fortran requires that a DO construct with a construct name end with an
END DO statement bearing the same name. This is true even if the DO
construct begins with a label DO statement; e.g., "constrName: do 10
j=1,10" must end with "10 end do constrName".
The compiler presently basically ignores construct names that appear on
label DO statements, because only non-label DO statements can be parsed
as DO constructs. This causes us to miss some errors, and (worse) breaks
the usage of the construct name on CYCLE and EXIT statements.
To fix this, this patch changes the parse tree and parser so that a DO
construct name on a putative label DO statement causes it to be parsed
as a "non-label" DO statement... with a label. Only true old-style
labeled DO statements without construct names are now parsed as such.
I did not change the class name NonLabelDoStmt -- it's widely used
across the front-end, and is the name of a production in the standard's
grammar. But now it basically means DoConstructDoStmt.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/67283.
Make the keyword `loop` optional for the end driective on combined
construct. This done to extend compatibility with other compiler that
allow this.
Reviewed By: razvanlupusoru
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D151856
Begin upstreaming of CUDA Fortran support in LLVM Flang.
This first patch implements parsing for CUDA Fortran syntax,
including:
- a new LanguageFeature enum value for CUDA Fortran
- driver change to enable that feature for *.cuf and *.CUF source files
- parse tree representation of CUDA Fortran syntax
- dumping and unparsing of the parse tree
- the actual parsers for CUDA Fortran syntax
- prescanning support for !@CUF and !$CUF
- basic sanity testing via unparsing and parse tree dumps
... along with any minimized changes elsewhere to make these
work, mostly no-op cases in common::visitors instances in
semantics and lowering to allow them to compile in the face
of new types in variant<> instances in the parse tree.
Because CUDA Fortran allows the kernel launch chevron syntax
("call foo<<<blocks, threads>>>()") only on CALL statements and
not on function references, the parse tree nodes for CallStmt,
FunctionReference, and their shared Call were rearranged a bit;
this caused a fair amount of one-line changes in many files.
More patches will follow that implement CUDA Fortran in the symbol
table and name resolution, and then semantic checking.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D150159
Presented with "IF (...)" with no following tokens in the statement,
diagnose a missing "THEN" instead of complaining about all of the
possible action statement initial tokens that could have been there
for a non-construct IF statement.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/62299.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D150783
When a multi-statement construct should end with a particular END statement
like "END SELECT", and that construct's END statement is missing or
unrecognizable, the error recovery productions should not misinterpret
a program unit END statement that follows and consume it as a misspelled
construct END statement. Doing so leads to cascading errors or a failed parse.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136896
Extend "extension<LanguageFeature>()" to incorporate an explanatory
message better than the current generic "nonstandard usage:".
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122035
The THEN keyword in the "ELSE IF (test) THEN" statement is useless
syntactically, and to omit it is a common error (at least for me!)
that has poor error recovery. This patch changes the parser to
cough up a simple "expected 'THEN'" and still recognize the rest of
the IF construct.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110952
OpenACC combined construct can have an optional end directive. This patch handle this
case in the parsing/unparsing with a canonicalization step. Unlike OmpEndLoopDirective,
this doesn't need a special treatment in the pre-fir tree as there is no clause attached to
a AccEndCombinedDirective.
Reviewed By: klausler
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84481
