ABataev added a comment. In D65835#1619549 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1619549>, @jdenny wrote:
> In D65835#1619526 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835#1619526>, @ABataev wrote: > > > > Maybe, but I haven't found any statement in either version that states > > > that map restrictions apply to is_device_ptr. > > > > `is_device_ptr` is a kind of mapping clause. I assume we can extend the > > restrictions for `map` clause to this clause too. > > > I'd like to understand this better. Is there something from the spec we can > quote in the code? See 2.19.7 Data-Mapping Attribute Rules, Clauses, and Directives > > >>> Another question is whether the restriction would make sense. For example, >>> does it ever make sense to specify both is_device_ptr and firstprivate for >>> the same variable on a target construct? >> >> On a `target` construct - no. > > Why not? It is meaningless. That's why it is prohibited in OpenMP 5.0 and allowed only for the combined constructs. These private clauses are applied to inner subconstructs. For example, `target parallel map(p) private(p)`. In the context of `target` region the variable is mapped while in the `parallel` context it is private. For `target map(p) private(p)` it is absolutely meaningless. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65835 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
