[OpenMP] Update the default version of OpenMP to 5.1

The default version of OpenMP is updated from 5.0 to 5.1 which means if -fopenmp is specified but -fopenmp-version is not specified with clang, t

[OpenMP] Update the default version of OpenMP to 5.1

The default version of OpenMP is updated from 5.0 to 5.1 which means if -fopenmp is specified but -fopenmp-version is not specified with clang, the default version of OpenMP is taken to be 5.1. After modifying the Frontend for that, various LIT tests were updated. This patch contains all such changes. At a high level, these are the patterns of changes observed in LIT tests -

# RUN lines which mentioned `-fopenmp-version=50` need to kept only if the IR for version 5.0 and 5.1 are different. Otherwise only one RUN line with no version info(i.e. default version) needs to be there.

# Test cases of this sort already had the RUN lines with respect to the older default version 5.0 and the version 5.1. Only swapping the version specification flag `-fopenmp-version` from newer version RUN line to older version RUN line is required.

# Diagnostics: Remove the 5.0 version specific RUN lines if there was no difference in the Diagnostics messages with respect to the default 5.1.

# Diagnostics: In case there was any difference in diagnostics messages between 5.0 and 5.1, mention version specific messages in tests.

# If the test contained version specific ifdef's e.g. "#ifdef OMP5" but there were no RUN lines for any other version than 5.X, then bring the code guarded by ifdef's outside and remove the ifdef's.

# Some tests had RUN lines for both 5.0 and 5.1 versions, but it is found that the IR for 5.0 is not different from the 5.1, therefore such RUN lines are redundant. So, such duplicated lines are removed.

# To generate CHECK lines automatically, use the script llvm/utils/update_cc_test_checks.py

Reviewed By: saiislam, ABataev

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129635

(cherry picked from commit 9dd2999907dc791136a75238a6000f69bf67cf4e)

show more ...

[OpenMP] Support OpenMP 5.1 attributes

OpenMP 5.1 added support for writing OpenMP directives using [[]]
syntax in addition to using #pragma and this introduces support for the
new syntax.

In OpenM

[OpenMP] Support OpenMP 5.1 attributes

OpenMP 5.1 added support for writing OpenMP directives using [[]]
syntax in addition to using #pragma and this introduces support for the
new syntax.

In OpenMP, the attributes take one of two forms:
[[omp::directive(...)]] or [[omp::sequence(...)]]. A directive
attribute contains an OpenMP directive clause that is identical to the
analogous #pragma syntax. A sequence attribute can contain either
sequence or directive arguments and is used to ensure that the
attributes are processed sequentially for situations where the order of
the attributes matter (remember:
https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.attr.grammar#4.sentence-4).

The approach taken here is somewhat novel and deserves mention. We
could refactor much of the OpenMP parsing logic to work for either
pragma annotation tokens or for attribute clauses. It would be a fair
amount of effort to share the logic for both, but it's certainly
doable. However, the semantic attribute system is not designed to
handle the arbitrarily complex arguments that OpenMP directives
contain. Adding support to thread the novel parsed information until we
can produce a semantic attribute would be considerably more effort.
What's more, existing OpenMP constructs are not (often) represented as
semantic attributes. So doing this through Attr.td would be a massive
undertaking that would likely only benefit OpenMP and comes with
additional risks. Rather than walk down that path, I am taking
advantage of the fact that the syntax of the directives within the
directive clause is identical to that of the #pragma form. Once the
parser recognizes that we're processing an OpenMP attribute, it caches
all of the directive argument tokens and then replays them as though
the user wrote a pragma. This reuses the same OpenMP parsing and
semantic logic directly, but does come with a risk if the OpenMP
committee decides to purposefully diverge their pragma and attribute
syntaxes. So, despite this being a novel approach that does token
replay, I think it's actually a better approach than trying to do this
through the declarative syntax in Attr.td.

show more ...