jdoerfert added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/OpenMP/target_parallel_for_is_device_ptr_messages.cpp:93
;
-#pragma omp target parallel for private(ps) is_device_ptr(ps) //
expected-error{{private variable cannot be in a is_device_ptr clause in
'#pragma omp target parallel for' directive}} expected-note{{defined as
private}}
+#pragma omp target parallel for private(ps) is_device_ptr(ps)
for (int ii=0; ii<10; ii++)
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> jdoerfert wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > jdoerfert wrote:
> > > > I think this should cause an error or at least a warning. Telling the
> > > > compiler `ps` is a device pointer only to create a local uninitialized
> > > > shadowing variable seems like an error to me.
> > > It is allowed according to OpenMP 5.0. Private copy must be created in
> > > the context of the parallel region, not the target region. So, for OpenMP
> > > 5.0 we should not emit error here.
> > What does that mean and how does that affect my reasoning?
> It means, that for OpenMP 5.0 we should emit a warning/error here. It is
> allowed according to the standard, we should allow it too.
> So, for OpenMP 5.0 we should not emit error here.
> that for OpenMP 5.0 we should emit a warning/error here.
The last answer contradicts what you said earlier. I expect there is a *not*
missing, correct?
Assuming you do not want an error, which is fine, I still think a warning is
appropriate as it seems to me there is never a reason to have a `is_device_ptr`
clause for a private value. I mean, it is either a bug by the programmer, e.g.,
5 letters of `firstprivate` went missing, or simply nonsensical code for which
we warn in other situations as well.
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
