animeshk-amd added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/OpenMP/target_map_codegen_10.cpp:19
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -no-opaque-pointers -DCK11 -fopenmp
-fopenmp-targets=i386-pc-linux-gnu -x c++ -std=c++11 -triple
i386-unknown-unknown -emit-pch -o %t %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -no-opaque-pointers -fopenmp
-fopenmp-targets=i386-pc-linux-gnu -x c++ -triple i386-unknown-unknown
-std=c++11 -include-pch %t -verify %s -emit-llvm -o - | FileCheck
-allow-deprecated-dag-overlap %s --check-prefixes CK11,CK11_5
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> What does this test?
This test was originally testing the respective directives only for the OpenMP
version 4.5. I have updated new RUN lines for the default version(5.0 as of
now) because there were differences in the generated IR in case of the default
version.
================
Comment at: clang/test/OpenMP/target_uses_allocators.c:42
+ #pragma omp target uses_allocators(omp_thread_mem_alloc)
allocate(omp_thread_mem_alloc: x) firstprivate(x) // expected-warning
{{allocator with the 'thread' trait access has unspecified behavior on 'target'
directive}}
+ {}
}
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> This should go into the _messages test case
The code needs to be tested for the generated IR(but as a side effect it also
generates a warning), that's why I had to put the expected-warning clause.
Since I had to write CHECK lines, I didn't put this in the _messages test. That
said, should I still put this into the _messages test along with the required
CHECK lines?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D132855/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D132855
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
