Observed issues › nvhpc-c-acc-atomic-update-sum-ice
nvc/nvfortran -acc: atomic update x = x + v + 1 rejected, then internal compiler error (nvc) or fort2 crash (nvfortran)
Legality: not independently confirmed. Independent readings are uncertain: The statement x = x + v + 1 parses as (x + v) + 1, so it does not match x = x binop expr with x as the left operand of the top-level operator. The spec requires only that x binop expr be mathematically equivalent to x binop (expr), and the precedence condition is given as a sufficient case. For integer addition, x + (v + 1) is equivalent, so the form can be read as admitted. How this is checked
Affected variants
| Compiler | MI300A gfx942 unified memory (XNACK 1) | MI300A gfx942 copy (XNACK 0) | MI250X gfx90a copy (XNACK 0) | MI300X gfx942 copy (XNACK 0) | MI350X gfx950 copy (XNACK 0) | A100 sm_80 separate memory | A100 sm_80 managed memory |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AFAR 24.3.0 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| CCE 19.0.0 | n/a | n/a | unknown not run | unknown not run | unknown not run | n/a | n/a |
| CCE 20.0.2 | n/a | n/a | unknown not run | unknown not run | unknown not run | n/a | n/a |
| CCE 21.0.3 | n/a | n/a | unknown not run | unknown not run | unknown not run | n/a | n/a |
| CCE 21.0.4 | n/a | n/a | unknown not run | unknown not run | unknown not run | n/a | n/a |
| NVHPC 25.11 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | behaves incorrectly | behaves incorrectly |
| NVHPC 26.9 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | behaves incorrectly | behaves incorrectly |
| GCC 16.2.0 | fails another way | fails another way | fails another way | fails another way | fails another way | fails another way | n/a |
"behaves incorrectly" / "not supported": this issue, confirmed in up to four environments (another build directory, another node, a repeat). "fails another way": a different failure, not counted as this issue. "unknown": not run there, or the runs disagree.
Messages
| Result | Compiler and GPU | Message |
|---|---|---|
| behaves incorrectly | NVHPC 25.11, A100 separate NVHPC 25.11, A100 managed | showNVC++-S-0155-Invalid atomic update expression (nvhpc-c-acc-atomic-update-sum-ice.c: 7) NVC++-F-0000-Internal compiler error. invalid ILM atomic region 0 (nvhpc-c-acc-atomic-update-sum-ice.c: 7) NVC++/x86-64 Linux 25.11-0: compilation aborted |
| behaves incorrectly | NVHPC 26.9, A100 separate NVHPC 26.9, A100 managed | showNVC++-S-0155-Invalid atomic update expression (nvhpc-c-acc-atomic-update-sum-ice.c: 7) NVC++-F-0000-Internal compiler error. invalid ILM atomic region 0 (nvhpc-c-acc-atomic-update-sum-ice.c: 7) NVC++/x86-64 Linux 26.9-0: compilation aborted |
| fails another way | GCC 16.2.0, MI300A unified GCC 16.2.0, MI300A copy GCC 16.2.0, MI250X GCC 16.2.0, MI300X GCC 16.2.0, MI350X GCC 16.2.0, A100 separate | shownvhpc-c-acc-atomic-update-sum-ice.c: In function ‘main’:
nvhpc-c-acc-atomic-update-sum-ice.c:7:18: error: invalid form of ‘#pragma omp atomic’ before ‘;’ token
7 | x = x + v + 1;
| ^ |
Reproduce
NVHPC 25.11, A100 separate
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$NVHPC_25_11/compilers/lib nvc -acc=gpu -gpu=cc80 -gpu=mem:separate -O2 repro.c -o repro ./repro
NVHPC 26.9, A100 separate
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$NVHPC_26_9/compilers/lib nvc -acc=gpu -gpu=cc80 -gpu=mem:separate -O2 repro.c -o repro ./repro
Program (38 lines)
// NVHPC 25.11 and 26.9 (nvc), NVIDIA A100 80GB PCIe
// (wingtip, sm_80). nvc rejects the OpenACC atomic update x = x + v + 1
// ("NVC++-S-0155-Invalid atomic update expression") and then stops with an
// internal compiler error ("NVC++-F-0000-Internal compiler error. invalid ILM
// atomic region"), at -O0 and -O2, for -acc=gpu and -acc=multicore.
// Spec: one C form of an atomic update is "x = x binop expr", and "The
// expression x binop expr must be mathematically equivalent to x binop
// (expr). This requirement is satisfied if the operators in expr have
// precedence greater than binop, or by using parentheses around expr or
// subexpressions of expr" (OpenACC 3.4 §2.12, p.77-78). C parses the
// statement as (x + v) + 1, which is x + (v + 1) for int: the precedence and
// parentheses forms are sufficient, not necessary, so the statement is a
// legal update. The same update written x = x + (v + 1) or x += v + 1
// compiles and gives 2080.
// Fortran: nvfortran fails the same form the same way and, in a gang loop,
// its front end crashes (nvhpc-acc-atomic-update-sum-fort2-crash.f90).
// Expected: "x=2080" (a diagnostic would at least not be an internal error).
// Observed (2026-10-24, rerun 2026-10-25, nvc 25.11-0 and 26.9-0, the flags
// below, -O0 and -acc=multicore): compile exit status 2 with the two
// messages above, on both releases; the two other spellings print x=2080
// (log: data/evidence/acc_c_probe/atomic/run.log, sum.c, sum_paren.c,
// sum_compound.c).
// Found by the catalog: the C port of acc34-clause-gang, acc34-clause-gang-dim
// and acc34-directive-loop writes b[i - 1] = b[i - 1] + 2 * a[i - 1] + 1
// (the -binop programs: acc34-c-clause-gang-binop, acc34-c-clause-gang-dim-
// binop, acc34-c-directive-loop-binop); reduced by hand.
// NVHPC: nvc -acc=gpu -gpu=cc80 -gpu=mem:separate -O2
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
int x = 0;
#pragma acc parallel loop copy(x)
for (int v = 0; v < 64; v++) {
#pragma acc atomic update
x = x + v + 1;
}
printf("x=%d\n", x);
return 0;
}
Something to add? Dispute its legality · Report it fixed in a newer release · Report a mistake on this page
Expected and observed
Observed where it behaves incorrectly
NVC++-S-0155-Invalid atomic update expression (nvhpc-c-acc-atomic-update-sum-ice.c: 7) NVC++-F-0000-Internal compiler error. invalid ILM atomic region 0 (nvhpc-c-acc-atomic-update-sum-ice.c: 7) NVC++/x86-64 Linux 25.11-0: compilation aborted
What the specification requires
The specification text this program relies on and the compiler is expected to support.
OpenACC 3.4 §2.12 p.77-78
The expression x binop expr must be mathematically equivalent to x binop (expr). This requirement is satisfied if the operators in expr have precedence greater than binop, or by using parentheses around expr or subexpressions of expr
Evidence
Same compiler, one change
- x = x + (v + 1), the right-hand side in parentheses: NVHPC 25.11: correct; NVHPC 26.9: correct
Control program
#include <stdio.h> int main(void) { int x = 0; #pragma acc parallel loop copy(x) for (int v = 0; v < 64; v++) { #pragma acc atomic update x = x + (v + 1); } printf("x=%d\n", x); return 0; }