Add 'libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/static-variable-1.c' [PR84991, PR84992, PR90779]

	libgomp/
	PR middle-end/84991
	PR middle-end/84992
	PR middle-end/90779
	* testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/static-variable-1.c: New.

(cherry picked from commit ffa0ae6eeef3ad15d3f288283e4c477193052f1a)

1 files changed, 460 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/static-variable-1.c b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/static-variable-1.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1d415cd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/static-variable-1.c
@@ -0,0 +1,460 @@
+/* "Function scope" (top-level block scope) 'static' variables
+
+   ... inside OpenACC compute construct regions as well as OpenACC 'routine'.
+
+   This is to document/verify aspects of GCC's observed behavior, not
+   necessarily as it's (intended to be?) restricted by the OpenACC
+   specification.  See also PR84991, PR84992, PR90779 etc., and
+   <https://github.com/OpenACC/openacc-spec/issues/372> "C/C++ 'static'
+   variables" (only visible to members of the GitHub OpenACC organization).
+*/
+
+
+#undef NDEBUG
+#include <assert.h>
+#include <string.h>
+#include <openacc.h>
+#include <gomp-constants.h>
+
+
+#define IF_DEBUG if (0)
+
+
+/* Without explicit 'num_gangs'.  */
+
+static void t0_c(void)
+{
+  IF_DEBUG
+    __builtin_printf ("%s\n", __FUNCTION__);
+
+  const int i_limit = 11;
+  const int var_init = 16;
+
+  for (int i = 0; i < i_limit; ++i)
+    {
+      int result = 0;
+      int num_gangs_actual = -1;
+#pragma acc parallel \
+  reduction(max:num_gangs_actual) \
+  reduction(max:result)
+      {
+	num_gangs_actual = 1 + __builtin_goacc_parlevel_id(GOMP_DIM_GANG);
+
+	static int var = var_init;
+
+#pragma acc atomic capture
+	result = ++var;
+
+	/* Irrespective of the order in which the gang-redundant threads
+	   execute, 'var' has now been incremented 'num_gangs_actual' times, and
+	   the final value captured as 'result'.  */
+      }
+      /* Without an explicit 'num_gangs' clause GCC assigns 'num_gangs(1)'
+	 because it doesn't see any use of gang-level parallelism inside the
+	 region.  */
+      assert(num_gangs_actual == 1);
+      assert(result == var_init + num_gangs_actual * (1 + i));
+    }
+}
+
+
+/* Call a gang-level routine.  */
+
+static const int t0_r_var_init = 61;
+
+#pragma acc routine gang
+__attribute__((noinline))
+static int t0_r_r(void)
+{
+  static int var = t0_r_var_init;
+
+  int tmp;
+#pragma acc atomic capture
+  tmp = ++var;
+
+  return tmp;
+}
+
+static void t0_r(void)
+{
+  IF_DEBUG
+    __builtin_printf ("%s\n", __FUNCTION__);
+
+  const int i_limit = 11;
+
+  for (int i = 0; i < i_limit; ++i)
+    {
+      int result = 0;
+      int num_gangs_actual = -1;
+#pragma acc parallel \
+  reduction(max:num_gangs_actual) \
+  reduction(max:result)
+      {
+	num_gangs_actual = 1 + __builtin_goacc_parlevel_id(GOMP_DIM_GANG);
+
+	result = t0_r_r();
+
+	/* Irrespective of the order in which the gang-redundant threads
+	   execute, 'var' has now been incremented 'num_gangs_actual' times, and
+	   the final value captured as 'result'.  */
+      }
+      /* The number of gangs selected by the implemention ought to but must not
+	 be bigger than one.  */
+      IF_DEBUG
+	__builtin_printf ("%d: num_gangs_actual: %d\n", i, num_gangs_actual);
+      assert(num_gangs_actual >= 1);
+      assert(result == t0_r_var_init + num_gangs_actual * (1 + i));
+    }
+}
+
+
+/* Explicit 'num_gangs'.  */
+
+static void t1_c(void)
+{
+  IF_DEBUG
+    __builtin_printf ("%s\n", __FUNCTION__);
+
+  const int i_limit = 22;
+  const int num_gangs_request = 444;
+  const int var_init = 5;
+
+  for (int i = 0; i < i_limit; ++i)
+    {
+      int result = 0;
+      int num_gangs_actual = -1;
+#pragma acc parallel \
+  num_gangs(num_gangs_request) \
+  reduction(max:num_gangs_actual) \
+  reduction(max:result)
+      {
+	num_gangs_actual = 1 + __builtin_goacc_parlevel_id(GOMP_DIM_GANG);
+
+	static int var = var_init;
+
+#pragma acc atomic capture
+	result = ++var;
+
+	/* Irrespective of the order in which the gang-redundant threads
+	   execute, 'var' has now been incremented 'num_gangs_actual' times, and
+	   the final value captured as 'result'.  */
+      }
+      if (acc_get_device_type() == acc_device_host)
+	assert(num_gangs_actual == 1);
+      else
+	assert(num_gangs_actual == num_gangs_request);
+      assert(result == var_init + num_gangs_actual * (1 + i));
+    }
+}
+
+
+/* Check the same routine called from two compute constructs.  */
+
+static const int t1_r2_var_init = 166;
+
+#pragma acc routine gang
+__attribute__((noinline))
+static int t1_r2_r(void)
+{
+  static int var = t1_r2_var_init;
+
+  int tmp;
+#pragma acc atomic capture
+  tmp = ++var;
+
+  return tmp;
+}
+
+static void t1_r2(void)
+{
+  IF_DEBUG
+    __builtin_printf ("%s\n", __FUNCTION__);
+
+  const int i_limit = 71;
+  /* The checking assumes the same 'num_gangs' for all compute constructs.  */
+  const int num_gangs_request = 333;
+  int num_gangs_actual = -1;
+  if (acc_get_device_type() == acc_device_host)
+    num_gangs_actual = 1;
+  else
+    {
+      /* We're assuming that the implementation is able to accomodate the
+	 'num_gangs' requested (which really ought to be true for
+	 'num_gangs').  */
+      num_gangs_actual = num_gangs_request;
+    }
+
+  for (int i = 0; i < i_limit; ++i)
+    {
+      int result_1 = 0;
+#pragma acc parallel \
+  num_gangs(num_gangs_request) \
+  reduction(max:result_1)
+      {
+	result_1 = t1_r2_r();
+
+	/* Irrespective of the order in which the gang-redundant threads
+	   execute, 'var' has now been incremented 'num_gangs_actual' times, and
+	   the final value captured as 'result_1'.  */
+      }
+      IF_DEBUG
+	__builtin_printf ("%d: result_1: %d\n", i, result_1);
+      assert(result_1 == t1_r2_var_init + num_gangs_actual * (1 + (i * 3 + 0)));
+
+      int result_2 = 0;
+#pragma acc parallel \
+  num_gangs(num_gangs_request) \
+  reduction(max:result_2)
+      {
+	result_2 = t1_r2_r() + t1_r2_r();
+
+	/* Irrespective of the order in which the gang-redundant threads
+	   execute, 'var' has now been incremented '2 * num_gangs_actual' times.
+	   However, the order of the two 't1_r2_r' function calls is not
+	   synchronized (between different gang-redundant threads).  We thus
+	   cannot verify the actual 'result_2' values in this case.  */
+      }
+      IF_DEBUG
+	__builtin_printf ("%d: result_2: %d\n", i, result_2);
+      if (num_gangs_actual == 1)
+	/* Per the rationale above, only in this case we can check the actual
+	   result.  */
+	assert(result_2 == (t1_r2_var_init + num_gangs_actual * (1 + (i * 3 + 1))
+			    + t1_r2_var_init + num_gangs_actual * (1 + (i * 3 + 2))));
+      /* But we can generally check low and high limits.  */
+      {
+	/* Must be bigger than '2 * result_1'.  */
+	int c = 2 * result_1;
+	IF_DEBUG
+	  __builtin_printf ("  > %d\n", c);
+	assert(result_2 > c);
+      }
+      {
+	/* ..., but limited by the base value for next 'i'.  */
+	int c = 2 * (t1_r2_var_init + num_gangs_actual * (0 + ((i + 1) * 3 + 0)));
+	IF_DEBUG
+	  __builtin_printf ("  < %d\n", c);
+	assert(result_2 < c);
+      }
+    }
+}
+
+
+/* Asynchronous execution.  */
+
+static const int t2_var_init_2 = -55;
+
+#pragma acc routine gang
+__attribute__((noinline))
+static int t2_r(void)
+{
+  static int var = t2_var_init_2;
+
+  int tmp;
+#pragma acc atomic capture
+  tmp = ++var;
+
+  return tmp;
+}
+
+static void t2(void)
+{
+  IF_DEBUG
+    __builtin_printf ("%s\n", __FUNCTION__);
+
+  const int i_limit = 12;
+  const int num_gangs_request_1 = 14;
+  const int var_init_1 = 5;
+  int results_1[i_limit][num_gangs_request_1];
+  memset (results_1, 0, sizeof results_1);
+  const int num_gangs_request_2 = 5;
+  int results_2[i_limit][num_gangs_request_2];
+  memset (results_2, 0, sizeof results_2);
+  const int num_gangs_request_3 = 34;
+  const int var_init_3 = 1250;
+  int results_3[i_limit][num_gangs_request_3];
+  memset (results_3, 0, sizeof results_3);
+
+#pragma acc data \
+  copy(results_1, results_2, results_3)
+  {
+    for (int i = 0; i < i_limit; ++i)
+      {
+	/* The following 'async' clauses effect asynchronous execution, but
+	   using the same async-argument for each compute construct implies that
+	   the respective compute constructs' execution is synchronized with
+	   itself, meaning that all 'i = 0' execution has finished (on the
+	   device) before 'i = 1' is started (on the device), etc.  */
+
+#pragma acc parallel \
+  present(results_1) \
+  num_gangs(num_gangs_request_1) \
+  async(1)
+	{
+	  static int var = var_init_1;
+
+	  int tmp;
+#pragma acc atomic capture
+	  tmp = ++var;
+
+	  results_1[i][__builtin_goacc_parlevel_id(GOMP_DIM_GANG)] += tmp;
+	}
+
+#pragma acc parallel \
+  present(results_2) \
+  num_gangs(num_gangs_request_2) \
+  async(2)
+	{
+	  results_2[i][__builtin_goacc_parlevel_id(GOMP_DIM_GANG)] += t2_r();
+	}
+
+#pragma acc parallel \
+  present(results_3) \
+  num_gangs(num_gangs_request_3) \
+  async(3)
+	{
+	  static int var = var_init_3;
+
+	  int tmp;
+#pragma acc atomic capture
+	  tmp = ++var;
+
+	  results_3[i][__builtin_goacc_parlevel_id(GOMP_DIM_GANG)] += tmp;
+	}
+      }
+#pragma acc wait
+  }
+  int num_gangs_actual_1;
+  int num_gangs_actual_2;
+  int num_gangs_actual_3;
+  if (acc_get_device_type() == acc_device_host)
+    {
+      num_gangs_actual_1 = 1;
+      num_gangs_actual_2 = 1;
+      num_gangs_actual_3 = 1;
+    }
+  else
+    {
+      /* We're assuming that the implementation is able to accomodate the
+	 'num_gangs' requested (which really ought to be true for
+	 'num_gangs').  */
+      num_gangs_actual_1 = num_gangs_request_1;
+      num_gangs_actual_2 = num_gangs_request_2;
+      num_gangs_actual_3 = num_gangs_request_3;
+    }
+
+  /* For 'i = 0', 'results_*[i][0..num_gangs_actual_*]' are expected to each
+     contain one value of '(1 + var_init_*)..(var_init_* + num_gangs_actual_*)',
+     and so on for increasing 'i'.  Their order however is unspecified due to
+     the gang-redundant execution.  (Thus checking that their sums match.)  */
+
+  int result_1 = 0;
+  int result_2 = 0;
+  int result_3 = 0;
+  for (int i = 0; i < i_limit; ++i)
+    {
+      int result_1_ = 0;
+      for (int g = 0; g < num_gangs_actual_1; ++g)
+	{
+	  IF_DEBUG
+	    __builtin_printf ("results_1[%d][%d]: %d\n", i, g, results_1[i][g]);
+	  result_1_ += results_1[i][g];
+	}
+      IF_DEBUG
+	__builtin_printf ("%d result_1_: %d\n", i, result_1_);
+      assert (result_1_ == (((var_init_1 + num_gangs_actual_1 * (1 + i)) * (1 + var_init_1 + num_gangs_actual_1 * (1 + i)) / 2)
+			    - ((var_init_1 + num_gangs_actual_1 * (0 + i)) * (1 + var_init_1 + num_gangs_actual_1 * (0 + i)) / 2)));
+      result_1 += result_1_;
+
+      int result_2_ = 0;
+      for (int g = 0; g < num_gangs_actual_2; ++g)
+	{
+	  IF_DEBUG
+	    __builtin_printf ("results_2[%d][%d]: %d\n", i, g, results_2[i][g]);
+	  result_2_ += results_2[i][g];
+	}
+      IF_DEBUG
+	__builtin_printf ("%d result_2_: %d\n", i, result_2_);
+      assert (result_2_ == (((t2_var_init_2 + num_gangs_actual_2 * (1 + i)) * (1 + t2_var_init_2 + num_gangs_actual_2 * (1 + i)) / 2)
+			    - ((t2_var_init_2 + num_gangs_actual_2 * (0 + i)) * (1 + t2_var_init_2 + num_gangs_actual_2 * (0 + i)) / 2)));
+      result_2 += result_2_;
+
+      int result_3_ = 0;
+      for (int g = 0; g < num_gangs_actual_3; ++g)
+	{
+	  IF_DEBUG
+	    __builtin_printf ("results_3[%d][%d]: %d\n", i, g, results_3[i][g]);
+	  result_3_ += results_3[i][g];
+	}
+      IF_DEBUG
+	__builtin_printf ("%d result_3_: %d\n", i, result_3_);
+      assert (result_3_ == (((var_init_3 + num_gangs_actual_3 * (1 + i)) * (1 + var_init_3 + num_gangs_actual_3 * (1 + i)) / 2)
+			    - ((var_init_3 + num_gangs_actual_3 * (0 + i)) * (1 + var_init_3 + num_gangs_actual_3 * (0 + i)) / 2)));
+      result_3 += result_3_;
+    }
+  IF_DEBUG
+    __builtin_printf ("result_1: %d\n", result_1);
+  assert (result_1 == (((var_init_1 + num_gangs_actual_1 * i_limit) * (1 + var_init_1 + num_gangs_actual_1 * i_limit) / 2)
+		       - (var_init_1 * (var_init_1 + 1) / 2)));
+  IF_DEBUG
+    __builtin_printf ("result_2: %d\n", result_2);
+  assert (result_2 == (((t2_var_init_2 + num_gangs_actual_2 * i_limit) * (1 + t2_var_init_2 + num_gangs_actual_2 * i_limit) / 2)
+		       - (t2_var_init_2 * (t2_var_init_2 + 1) / 2)));
+  IF_DEBUG
+    __builtin_printf ("result_3: %d\n", result_3);
+  assert (result_3 == (((var_init_3 + num_gangs_actual_3 * i_limit) * (1 + var_init_3 + num_gangs_actual_3 * i_limit) / 2)
+		       - (var_init_3 * (var_init_3 + 1) / 2)));
+}
+
+
+#pragma acc routine seq
+__attribute__((noinline))
+static int pr84991_1_r_s(int n)
+{
+  static const int test[] = {1,2,3,4};
+  return test[n];
+}
+
+static void pr84991_1(void)
+{
+  int n[1];
+  n[0] = 3;
+#pragma acc parallel copy(n)
+  {
+    n[0] = pr84991_1_r_s(n[0]);
+  }
+  assert(n[0] == 4);
+}
+
+
+static void pr84992_1(void)
+{
+  int n[1];
+  n[0] = 3;
+#pragma acc parallel copy(n)
+  {
+    static const int test[] = {1,2,3,4};
+    n[0] = test[n[0]];
+  }
+  assert(n[0] == 4);
+}
+
+
+int main(void)
+{
+  t0_c();
+
+  t0_r();
+
+  t1_c();
+
+  t1_r2();
+
+  t2();
+
+  pr84991_1();
+
+  pr84992_1();
+
+  return 0;
+}