[PATCH] D21723: [RFC] Enhance synchscope representation

[Konstantin Zhuravlyov via llvm-commits]

kzhuravl added inline comments.

================
Comment at: docs/LangRef.rst:2173
@@ +2172,3 @@
+example, OpenCL supports separate memory scopes for device, work-group and
+sub-group).
+
----------------
mehdi_amini wrote:
> I'm not convinced by the wording `it is target defined how ``<n>`` affects which other operations`, it can be read that even with the same scope it is still target define, which is not the intent right?
> 
> Straw man alternative:
> 
> ```
> If an atomic operation is marked ``syncscope(<n>)``, then it *synchronizes with*,
> and participates in the seq\_cst total orderings of, other operations
> running in the same scope. It is target defined how it interacts with operations
> in a different scope.
> ```
> 
Yes, you are right. I have updated the wording.

================
Comment at: docs/LangRef.rst:2178
@@ -2167,1 +2177,3 @@
+total orderings of, other operations that do not specify ``singlethread`` or
+``syncscope(<n>)`` running in any thread.
 
----------------
mehdi_amini wrote:
> The same target define behavior applies here with respect to other scope.
I tried to cover all cases in the paragraph above this one. Would that be ok?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D21723