mgrang added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39947#922889, @rjmccall wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39947#922870, @mgrang wrote: > > > Although this patches fixes the above unit test failures, the generated > > code is very different from the one that the tests expect. As a result, > > these tests need to be adjusted. Could the reviewers please comment/suggest > > on whether it is ok to fix the tests as a result of this change? > > > > The other way of obtaining deterministic ordering for privates with the > > same alignment is to use an index for each item inserted into Privates and > > use it as a tie-breaker. But even in that case the generated code is quite > > different and tests still need to be adjusted. > > > Fixing the tests may be acceptable. Can you give an example of the > difference between the old and new test outputs? Please see https://www.diffchecker.com/7V2XFbk4 for the difference in output for the following test before and after my change: clang -cc1 -internal-isystem <MYDIR>/build/llvm/lib/clang/6.0.0/include -nostdsysteminc -verify -fopenmp -x c++ -triple x86_64-apple-darwin10 -emit-llvm <MYDIR>/src/llvm/tools/clang/test/OpenMP/task_firstprivate_codegen.cpp -o - https://reviews.llvm.org/D39947 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
