On 8/23/24 07:03, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Add documentation for OpenMP's interoperability routines.
I have only a few copy-editing type comments.
+Implementation remark: In GCC, the Fortran interface differs from the one shown
+below: the function has C binding, @var{interop} is passed by value and an
+integer of @code{c_int} kind is returnd, permitting to have the same ABI as the
s/returnd/returned/ (this seems to be the only instance in the patch)
s/permitting to have/which permits use of/g (multiple instances)
+C function. This does not affect the usage of the function when GCC's
+@code{omp_lib} module or @code{omp_lib.h} header is used.
Stepping back to consider this from a higher-level perspective,
shouldn't the interface documented in the GCC manual reflect what GCC
implements, rather than what the spec says that is explicitly *not* what
is implemented? Or is the way you have documented this consistent with
the way other libgomp features that don't strictly conform to the spec
have already been documented?
+The @code{omp_get_interop_name} function returns the name of the property
+itself as string; for the properties specified by the OpenMP specification,
+the name matches the name of the named constant with the @code{omp_ipr_}
+prefix removed.
That should be @samp{omp_ipr_}, not @code markup.
+In GCC, this function returns the C/C++ data type for this property or
the name of the C/C++ data type
+@samp{N/A} if this property is not available for the given foreign runtime.
@code{"N/A"}, I think. (It's a string literal, right?)
+If @var{interop} is @code{omp_interop_none} or for invalid property values,
+a null pointer is returned. The the effect of running this routine in a
s/The the/The/
+The @code{omp_get_interop_rc_desc} function returns a string value describing
+the @var{ret_code} in human readable form.
s/human readable form/human-readable form/
I know the libgomp manual uses different formatting conventions than the
GCC manual or other Texinfo manuals. Have you inspected the formatted
output to make sure it's what you expect and consistent with the rest of
the document?
-Sandra
