jdenny added a comment. In D65835#1639612 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1639612>, @ABataev wrote:
> In D65835#1639593 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1639593>, @jdenny wrote: > > > In D65835#1639585 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1639585>, @ABataev wrote: > > > > > In D65835#1639584 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1639584>, @jdenny > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I want to be sure we're on the same page. Due to the changes I just > > > > backed out, the following two examples now generate different code: > > > > > > > > int a = 0; > > > > #pragma omp target map(a) > > > > #pragma omp teams firstprivate(a) > > > > ; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int a = 0; > > > > #pragma omp target teams firstprivate(a) map(a) > > > > ; > > > > > > > > > > > > The difference is whether `a` is passed by reference (the first case) > > > > or value (the second case) to the offloading function. > > > > > > > > Is that fine for you? > > > > > > > > > No, this is what I warned about. We shall have the same codegen just like > > > in the first case, the value must be passed by reference and mapped as > > > tofrom. > > > > > > If I add back those changes I just backed out, we get the same codegen. Is > > that what you want? > > > Those 2 cases must result in the same codegen. But I rather doubt we need > your previous changes. Check `Sema::isOpenMPCapturedByRef` instead, required > functionality must be handled in this function. That's the focus of my previous changes. The rest just supports the changes there. 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
