ABataev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/OpenMPKinds.cpp:64
+ return OMPC_MAP_MODIFIER_unknown;
+ if (!LangOpts.OpenMPExtensions && Type == OMPC_MAP_MODIFIER_ompx_hold)
return OMPC_MAP_MODIFIER_unknown;
----------------
jdenny wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > jdenny wrote:
> > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > I would enable this since OpenMP 5.2, since in 5.2 `ompx_` is
> > > > officially allowed extension format.
> > > Do you mean both `-fopenmp-version=52` and `-fopenmp-extensions` should
> > > be required to enable `ompx_hold`?
> > >
> > > Or do you mean only `-fopenmp-version=52` should be required to enable
> > > `ompx_hold`, and we can drop the `-fopenmp-extensions` implementation?
> > Second option. Actually, we can enable it if either `-fopenmp-version=52`
> > or `-fopenmp-extensions` is used, depends if we want to add a switch for
> > non-standard OpenMP extensions. If OpenMP 5.2 is on, we can just ignore
> > `-f[no]-openmp-extensions`. Thoughts?
> Consider that, if `-fopenmp-version=52` is sufficient to enable all
> extensions using the `ompx_` prefix, then all such extensions will be enabled
> by default once OpenMP 5.2 is the default. At that point, won't it be
> strange that standard OpenMP 5.3 or 6.0 features will be disabled by default
> while some features appearing in no standard will be enabled by default?
>
> By that logic, it seems `-fopenmp-version=52` shouldn't be sufficient to
> enable extensions. However, it seems overkill to have to specify both
> `-fopenmp-version=52` and `-fopenmp-extensions`. I think
> `-fopenmp-extensions` is a clear enough request to enable the `ompx_` prefix
> regardless of the OpenMP version.
Ok, let's move with `-fopenmp-extensions`
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106509/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106509
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
