jdenny added a comment. In D83061#2165093 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83061#2165093>, @ABataev wrote:
> In D83061#2165089 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83061#2165089>, @jdenny wrote: > > > In D83061#2165063 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83061#2165063>, @ABataev wrote: > > > > > LG. > > > > > > Thanks for the review. > > > > As discussed in the review summary, please consider the following. A > > present map type modifier behavior that this patch does not attempt to > > implement is TR8 sec. 2.22.7.1 "map Clause", p. 319, L14-16: > > > > > If a map clause with a present map-type-modifier is present in a map > > > clause, then the effect of the clause is ordered before all other > > > map clauses that do not have the present modifier. > > > > Compare to L10-11: > > > > > For a given construct, the effect of a map clause with the to, from, > > > or tofrom map-type is ordered before the effect of a map clause with > > > the alloc, release, or delete map-type. > > > > As far as I can tell, Clang does not implement L10-11. Is that correct? If > > not, then I think both passages should be implemented together later. Any > > objections? > > > Looks like you're right. Yes, go ahead and implement it. Are you ok for it to be a later patch after pushing these? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83061/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83061 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
