[flang-commits] [flang] [mlir] [Flang][MLIR][OpenMP] Allow setting OMP_MAP_PTR_AND_OBJ by frontends (PR #84328)

[via flang-commits]

agozillon wrote:

> Thank you for the changes!
> 
> You may ignore this, but I think this low-level naming coming from libomptarget implementation looks off for a higher level dialect. As I understand, you need to distinguish the pointer and non-pointer members of the aggregate so that you can later properly set `PTR_AND_OBJ`. So can we use something like `is_ptr_member` to make this difference explicit? It reads better to me from the language point of view, at least for C/C++. It also looks okay for Fortran, if we assume the underlying memory representation of the descriptor (which, I believe, will be the only parent whose members can have `is_ptr_member`).
> 
> Feel free to go with `PTR_AND_OBJ` though :)

That is indeed correct for at least one of the uses, I think (but perhaps I am incorrect) it's more generally used to indicate that something is a pointer that's pointing to some memory, so both should be mapped accordingly, feels a little out of place in Fortran but the descriptor base address and declare target link need it set, the latter because it undergoes some transformations to be a global pointer from my recollection of working on it as opposed to the original type itself having anything to do with being a pointer <-> pointee coupling.

As for the naming I agree it's not the best and I would be happy to change it if you wish to suggest another name as I think is_ptr_member may not quite cover all of it's uses. I am not so sure if is_ptr would be to generic, is_ptr_pointee? 

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84328