[openmp] [clang] [OpenMP][USM] Introduces -fopenmp-force-usm flag (PR #76571)

2024-01-20 Thread Jan Patrick Lehr via cfe-commits
https://github.com/jplehr updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76571 >From a6c437a52674613b90c451c2ed4105265f420a32 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: JP Lehr Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:32:24 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [OpenMP][USM] Introduces -fopenmp-force-usm flag This flag forces the

[openmp] [clang] [OpenMP][USM] Introduces -fopenmp-force-usm flag (PR #76571)

2024-01-19 Thread Jan Patrick Lehr via cfe-commits
jplehr wrote: @carlobertolli can you have another look at the runtime test I added to see if that addresses your feedback? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76571 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[clang] [OpenMP][USM] Introduces -fopenmp-force-usm flag (PR #76571)

2024-01-03 Thread Johannes Doerfert via cfe-commits
jdoerfert wrote: Documentation missing as well. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76571 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [OpenMP][USM] Introduces -fopenmp-force-usm flag (PR #76571)

2023-12-29 Thread Jan Patrick Lehr via cfe-commits
jplehr wrote: > > Is the approach taken in this approach acceptable as opposed to the header > > solution I put up earlier? > > Yes, it's pretty much exactly what I had in mind from my suggestion in the > last PR. Thanks. Perfect. I'll go ahead and add lit and runtime tests.

[clang] [OpenMP][USM] Introduces -fopenmp-force-usm flag (PR #76571)

2023-12-29 Thread Joseph Huber via cfe-commits
jhuber6 wrote: > Is the approach taken in this approach acceptable as opposed to the header > solution I put up earlier? Yes, it's pretty much exactly what I had in mind from my suggestion in the last PR. Thanks. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76571

[clang] [OpenMP][USM] Introduces -fopenmp-force-usm flag (PR #76571)

2023-12-29 Thread Jan Patrick Lehr via cfe-commits
jplehr wrote: Is the approach taken in this approach acceptable as opposed to the header solution I put up earlier? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76571 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[clang] [OpenMP][USM] Introduces -fopenmp-force-usm flag (PR #76571)

2023-12-29 Thread Joseph Huber via cfe-commits
https://github.com/jhuber6 commented: Needs a test. There should be some difference in codegen we can key off of. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76571 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[clang] [OpenMP][USM] Introduces -fopenmp-force-usm flag (PR #76571)

2023-12-29 Thread via cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-driver Author: Jan Patrick Lehr (jplehr) Changes This flag forces the compiler to generate code for OpenMP target regions as if the user specified the #pragma omp requires unified_shared_memory in each source file. The option does not have a

[clang] [OpenMP][USM] Introduces -fopenmp-force-usm flag (PR #76571)

2023-12-29 Thread Jan Patrick Lehr via cfe-commits
https://github.com/jplehr created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76571 This flag forces the compiler to generate code for OpenMP target regions as if the user specified the #pragma omp requires unified_shared_memory in each source file. The option does not have a -fno-* friend