ABataev added a comment. In D66247#1630287 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66247#1630287>, @jdenny wrote:
> In D66247#1630262 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66247#1630262>, @ABataev wrote: > > > In D66247#1630245 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66247#1630245>, @jdenny wrote: > > > > > In D66247#1630196 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66247#1630196>, @ABataev > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Do we really need to map such variables? According to standard, "The > > > > map clause specifies how an original list item is mapped from the > > > > current task’s data environment to a corresponding list item in the > > > > device data environment of the device identified by the construct.", > > > > i.e. it does not map the variable, but "specifies" how to map it. > > > > > > > > > What you're asking for now contradicts what you asked for at > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1624659 when I asked about the same > > > example of `target map(a)` enclosing `teams private(a)`. > > > > > > Seems to me I did not expressed my idea absolutely correctly. I meant that > > if the variable is really mapped, then the maptype must be generated in all > > cases. If we do not need to map the variable, just like in these case, > > there definitely should not be maptype. > > > Then I still need an example where D65835 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835> > doesn't behave correctly. Try `map(a) firstprivate(a) defaultmap(scalar:tofrom)`, where `a` is `int`, for example. The variable must be mapped as `tofrom` in this case but, most probably, will be mapped as `to`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66247/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66247 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
