================
@@ -3623,6 +3623,9 @@ static llvm::omp::OpenMPOffloadMappingFlags
mapParentWithMembers(
LLVM::ModuleTranslation &moduleTranslation, llvm::IRBuilderBase &builder,
llvm::OpenMPIRBuilder &ompBuilder, DataLayout &dl, MapInfosTy
&combinedInfo,
MapInfoData &mapData, uint64_t mapDataIndex, bool isTargetParams) {
+ assert(!ompBuilder.Config.isTargetDevice() &&
+ "function only supported for host device codegen");
----------------
bhandarkar-pranav wrote:
> Yes, I do agree that "host device" seems like a rather contradictory term,
> since we generally just talk about "host" as the CPU and "device" as whatever
> we're offloading to. The reason of using these terms is to align with OpenMP
> terminology (5.2 spec, Section 1.2.1):
>
> > **host device** The _device_ on which the _OpenMP program_ begins execution.
> > **target device** A _device_ with respect to which the current _device_
> > performs an operation, as specified by a _device construct_ or an OpenMP
> > device memory routine.
>
> This is also why the `-fopenmp-is-target-device` flag is called that and not
> `-fopenmp-is-device` (which [used to be its
> name](https://reviews.llvm.org/D154591)).
Thank you, good to know. So in this world every thing is a device and some
devices are hosts and some are targets meant to be offloaded to.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137199
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
