ABataev added a comment. In D65835#1624471 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1624471>, @jdenny wrote:
> I made the following changes, as suggested: > > - Add back restriction for OpenMP < 5.0. > - Remove `is_device_ptr` changes. > > Alexey, you said: > > > Plus, these changes are not enough to support this new feature from OpenMP > > 5.0. There definitely must be some changes in the codegen. If the variable > > is mapped in the target construct, we should not generate a code for the > > private clause of this variable on the target construct, since, in this > > case, private clauses are applied for the inner subdirectives, which are > > the part of the combined directive, but not the target part of the > > directive. > > I haven't spent enough time exploring codegen here in the past, so I'm > starting out by investigating the codegen output for various examples. I'm > looking for differences between a combined `target teams` and an equivalent > separate `target` and `teams`. So far, I see nothing but superficial > differences. Do you have an example where there's an undesirable difference? > > Thanks. Try something like `target parallel firstprivate (a) map(a)`. Currently it will create a firstprivate copy of the variable a in target context thought it is not required at all. It may lead to increased register pressure and performance degradation. 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
