kkwli0 marked 13 inline comments as done.
kkwli0 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:216
+------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+| device extension | pointer attachment
| :none:`unclaimed` |
|
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > Is this for Fortran?
> No also C/C++.
Yep, it is not Fortran only. We clarify some pointer attachment behavior in
5.0.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:240
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+| misc extension | prevent new type definitions in clauses
| :none:`unclaimed` |
|
+------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > kkwli0 wrote:
> > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > What is this?
> > > This is a clarification. The spec add restrictions to declare new type on
> > > iterators, declare reduction and declare mapper [49:11; 308:17; 327:26]
> > Would be good to put these links to the doc to make it clear
> > Would be good to put these links to the doc to make it clear
>
> Agreed. We have the HTML version of the standard online so we can do this
> "easily" but it will cost someone time and require to change the table
> layout. Let's postpone it for now until someone find some spare minutes.
Yes, it involves a significant change in the table if we include the
corresponding text change in the table. In some cases, it is not clear from
the original tickets. I think it is better to leave it as-is. If change the
description can help, I welcome any suggestions.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
