carlo.bertolli added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGStmtOpenMP.cpp:7791
+ OpenMPBindClauseKind bindParam = C->getBindKind();
+ switch (bindParam) {
+ case OMPC_BIND_parallel: {
----------------
koops wrote:
> carlo.bertolli wrote:
> > What if you have something like this:
> >
> > void foo(..) {
> > #pragma omp loop
> > for (..) {
> > }
> > }
> >
> > int main() {
> >
> > #pragma omp target teams
> > {
> > ...
> > foo();
> > }
> >
> > #pragma omp target
> > {
> > #pragma omp parallel
> > {
> > foo();
> > }
> > }
> >
> > In the first invocation, loop is bound to teams. In the second, loop is
> > bound to parallel.
> > This is a runtime condition.
> >
> > I *believe* that not even OpenMP 6.0 TR1 allows us to decide at compile
> > time if loop should be treated as worksharing or workdistribution....but I
> > might be wrong.
> >
> > Thanks!
> The loop directive does not have a bind clause. If you examine the current
> patch it takes care to preserve the old structure as is and the binding is
> done by default during runtime.
Do you mean that this patch adds up to existing support - adding support for
bind - and that existing support is already based on runtime support to decide
on the case I mentioned?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D144634/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D144634
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
