jdoerfert added a comment. >> This is neither true, nor relevant. It is not true because OpenMP 5.0 >> declare variant is so broken it cannot be used for what it was intended for. >> That means people (as for example we for math) will inevitably use begin/end >> declare variant. > > I rather doubt that it is so much broken. The fact, that you need some new > construct to express some functionality does not mean that the previous one > is incorrect. It is incomplete, maybe. But not broken.
Broken in the sense that we (in the OpenMP accelerator subcommittee) don't think it can be used for what we envisioned it initially. It can be used for certain things though. > And even for begin/end stuff, multiversioning is only required for construct > traits, for all other traits we can reuse the existing implementation. Again, this is not the case. begin/end *always* caused multiple definitions with the same name. Even if we ignore that for a second, why should we not use the powerful infrastructure we have (=multi-versioning) that supports `construct` traits and not use it for the other traits? Or asked differently, why should we have a second codegen rewriting scheme? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71179/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71179 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
