ABataev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:205
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
+| device extension | clause: device_type
| claimed | |
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
----------------
kkwli0 wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > Can't find this in the standard.
> Section 2.12.7
Then it is unclaimed, I think.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:233
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
+| device extension | mapping lambda expression
| claimed | D51107 |
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
----------------
kkwli0 wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > Done
> Do we support the behavior in 318:7-14?
Yes.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:237
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
+| device extension | map(replicate) or map(local) when requires
unified_shared_me | done | D55719,D55892 |
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
----------------
kkwli0 wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > Not sure 100%, but seems to me it is not done.
> I think we still need the codegen patch and I am not sure about the runtime
> part.
I don't think it works with unified memory since we don't fully support unified
memory.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:243
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
+| atomic extension | hints for the atomic construct
| done | D51233 |
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
----------------
kkwli0 wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > This is just the runtime part, the compiler does not support this
> Since it is a hint according to the specification, I guess it is up to us
> whether we want to declare this feature done or not. If we do that, we
> should mention it in the limitation section.
Still, compiler does not use this. WE can mark this as partial, but definitely
not done.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64375/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64375
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
