animeshk-amd added a comment. In D129635#4442580 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129635#4442580>, @h-vetinari wrote:
> In D129635#4440613 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129635#4440613>, @animeshk-amd > wrote: > >> In the multi-company community meeting, the agreement was to move to the 5.1 >> version assuming that these features are supported. > > We shouldn't need to assume - either the features are supported or not. I > thought the status page would be the right place for this information, but > perhaps it is out of date? Whoever the openmp stakeholders are here should > ensure this information is correct and up-to-date! > > I mean, I'm sure the participants in that meeting know the situation much > better than I do, but from what's visible from the outside, it looks unusual > to default to something that's not yet fully implemented (for all the usual > reasons: assuming there are mistakes found in the not-yet-complete > implementation of 5.1, you'll then have to break your users to fix it, > whereas until this PR, it was an explicit choice of the consumer to use the > not-yet-fully-supported 5.1; it's also unusual in the way that a user will > get an error for using features that aren't implemented yet, despite being > able to see that the default is 5.1) I understand your concerns. However, I would like to point out that the various stakeholders involved in this community meeting are well aware of the default version update and its consequences as it was discussed well throughout an year. Regarding status page, I agree that the individual contributors for respective features should be responsible for updating the page. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129635/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129635 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
