[PATCH] D64375: [OpenMP][Docs] Provide implementation status details

[Alexey Bataev via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

ABataev added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:205
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
+| device extension             | clause: device_type                                          | claimed      |                                            |
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
----------------
kkwli0 wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > Can't find this in the standard.
> Section 2.12.7
Then it is unclaimed, I think.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:233
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
+| device extension             | mapping lambda expression                                    | claimed      | D51107                                     |
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
----------------
kkwli0 wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > Done
> Do we support the behavior in 318:7-14?
Yes.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:237
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
+| device extension             | map(replicate) or map(local) when requires unified_shared_me | done         | D55719,D55892                              |
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
----------------
kkwli0 wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > Not sure 100%, but seems to me it is not done.
> I think we still need the codegen patch and I am not sure about the runtime part.
I don't think it works with unified memory since we don't fully support unified memory.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:243
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
+| atomic extension             | hints for the atomic construct                               | done         | D51233                                     |
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------------+
----------------
kkwli0 wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > This is just the runtime part, the compiler does not support this
> Since it is a hint according to the specification, I guess it is up to us whether we want to declare this feature done or not.  If we do that, we should mention it in the limitation section.
Still, compiler does not use this. WE can mark this as partial, but definitely not done. 


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D64375/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D64375