> In convert_nonlocal_omp_clauses, the following clauses are
> missing: OMP_CLAUSE_AFFINITY, OMP_CLAUSE_DEVICE_TYPE,
> OMP_CLAUSE_EXCLUSIVE, OMP_CLAUSE_INCLUSIVE.
OMP_CLAUSE_{EXCLUSIVE,INCLUSIVE} isn't needed, because we don't
walk the clauses at all for GIMPLE_OMP_SCAN. It would be a bug
if we used the exclusive/inclusive operands after gimplification,
but we apparently don't do that, all we check is whether the
OMP_CLAUSE_KIND of the first clause (all should be the same) is
OMP_CLAUSE_EXCLUSIVE or OMP_CLAUSE_INCLUSIVE, nothing else.
That said, I think we should have a testcase.
2021-06-06 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
* gcc.dg/gomp/scan-1.c: New test.
--- /dev/null
+int baz (void);
+void qux (int);
+int r;
+
+int
+foo (void)
+{
+ int r = 0, i;
+ void bar (void) { r++; }
+ #pragma omp parallel for reduction(inscan, +:r)
+ for (i = 0; i < 64; i++)
+ {
+ r += baz ();
+ #pragma omp scan inclusive(r)
+ qux (r);
+ }
+ #pragma omp parallel for reduction(inscan, +:r)
+ for (i = 0; i < 64; i++)
+ {
+ qux (r);
+ #pragma omp scan exclusive(r)
+ r += baz ();
+ }
+ bar ();
+ return r;
+}
+
+int
+corge (void)
+{
+ int r = 0, i;
+ void bar (void)
+ {
+ #pragma omp parallel for reduction(inscan, +:r)
+ for (i = 0; i < 64; i++)
+ {
+ r += baz ();
+ #pragma omp scan inclusive(r)
+ qux (r);
+ }
+ #pragma omp parallel for reduction(inscan, +:r)
+ for (i = 0; i < 64; i++)
+ {
+ qux (r);
+ #pragma omp scan exclusive(r)
+ r += baz ();
+ }
+ }
+ bar ();
+ return r;
+}