Hi Paul-Antoine! On 2026-07-08T14:56:35+0200, Paul-Antoine Arras <[email protected]> wrote: > See attached, updated patch and below.
Thanks! OK to push with one minor change: > On 08/07/2026 11:09, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >> On 2026-07-07T17:43:14+0200, Paul-Antoine Arras <[email protected]> wrote: >>> --- gcc/doc/invoke.texi >>> +++ gcc/doc/invoke.texi >> >>> +@opindex fopenmp-ompt >>> +@opindex fno-openmp-ompt >>> +@cindex OpenMP OMPT >>> +@item -fopenmp-ompt >>> +Emit OMPT entry points around OpenMP worksharing constructs, so that an >>> +OMPT tool can observe their start and end. Requires @option{-fopenmp}. >>> + >>> +@opindex fopenmp-ompt-detailed >>> +@opindex fno-openmp-ompt-detailed >>> +@item -fopenmp-ompt-detailed >>> +Like @option{-fopenmp-ompt}, and additionally emit an OMPT dispatch >>> +entry point that gets called at the beginning of each workshare chunk. >>> +Requires @option{-fopenmp}. >> Does '-fopenmp-ompt-detailed' also need '@cindex OpenMP OMPT'? > > I guess it doesn't hurt: added '@cindex OpenMP OMPT detailed'. > --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi > +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi > +@opindex fopenmp-ompt > +@opindex fno-openmp-ompt > +@cindex OpenMP OMPT > +@item -fopenmp-ompt > +[...] > + > +@opindex fopenmp-ompt-detailed > +@opindex fno-openmp-ompt-detailed > +@cindex OpenMP OMPT detailed > +@item -fopenmp-ompt-detailed > +[...] I meant using literally '@cindex OpenMP OMPT' also for '-fopenmp-ompt-detailed': no need to introduce a new "concept" for that variant, it's perfectly fine if both '-fopenmp-ompt' and '-fopenmp-ompt-detailed' show up under "OpenMP OMPT". Grüße Thomas
