jdenny added a comment. In D65835#1623814 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1623814>, @hfinkel wrote:
> In D65835#1623772 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1623772>, @ABataev wrote: > > > In D65835#1623756 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1623756>, @kkwli0 wrote: > > > > > In D65835#1622042 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1622042>, @ABataev > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I want to be sure we're on the same page: For OpenMP 5.0, should we > > > > > allow is_device_ptr with the private clauses? > > > > > > > > Yes, since it is allowed by the standard. > > > > > > > > > Umm ... I probably missed some earlier discussions! What would be the > > > behavior of the following code? > > > > > > p = omp_target_alloc(...); > > > #pragma omp target private(p) is_device_ptr(p) > > > p[...] = ...; // crash or not? > > > > > > > > > It must crush, I assume. The main problem is that this construct is allowed > > by the standard. > > > Yep. We should add a warning message for it. Clang currently doesn't permit is_device_ptr with firstprivate either, but I'm not aware of any reason to diagnose that. Is there? And then there are privatization clauses like linear and reduction.... 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
