ABataev added a comment. In D65835#1621168 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1621168>, @jdenny wrote:
> In D65835#1619560 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1619560>, @ABataev wrote: > > > In D65835#1619549 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1619549>, @jdenny wrote: > > > > > In D65835#1619526 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1619526>, @ABataev > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe, but I haven't found any statement in either version that > > > > > states that map restrictions apply to is_device_ptr. > > > > > > > > `is_device_ptr` is a kind of mapping clause. I assume we can extend the > > > > restrictions for `map` clause to this clause too. > > > > > > > > > I'd like to understand this better. Is there something from the spec we > > > can quote in the code? > > > > > > See 2.19.7 Data-Mapping Attribute Rules, Clauses, and Directives > > > I looked again. I'm still not finding any text in that section that implies > is_device_ptr follows the same restrictions as map. Can you please cite > specific lines of text instead of an entire section? Thanks for your help. Ah, it is only in OpenMP 5.0 anŠ² restrictions for the map clause are for map clause only. Then we should allow `is_device_ptr` with the private clauses for OpenMP 4.5. Better to do this in a separate patch only for `is_device_ptr`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
