ABataev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: openmp/libomptarget/src/omptarget.cpp:233
MapperComponents
- .Components[target_data_function == targetDataEnd ? I : E - I - 1];
+ .Components[target_data_function == targetDataEnd ? E - I - 1 : I];
MapperArgsBase[I] = C.Base;
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> ye-luo wrote:
> > ye-luo wrote:
> > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > ye-luo wrote:
> > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > grokos wrote:
> > > > > > > What is the current status of the order of the arguments clang
> > > > > > > emits? Is it still necessary to traverse arguments in reverse
> > > > > > > order here?
> > > > > > Yes, still required
> > > > > Based on the conversation in
> > > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D85216
> > > > > This line of code neither before nor after the change plays well.
> > > > > Shall we fix the order in targetDataEnd first?
> > > > This change is part of this patch and cannot be committed separately.
> > > I mean could you fix that issue as a parent of this patch?
> > > This change is part of this patch and cannot be committed separately.
> >
> > If fixing the reordering is part of this patch, I should have seen
> > "target_data_function == targetDataEnd ?" branches disappear.
> Nope, just with this patch. It reorders the maps and need to change the
> cleanup order too.
It works just like constructors/destructors: allocate in direct order,
deallocate in reversed to correctly handle map order.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86119/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86119
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
