[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]

[Johannes Doerfert via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jdoerfert added a comment.

@kkwli0 I propose you can merge the parts where discussion has reached a consensus while the other parts are resolved. I'm generally fine with this, we can always improve on it further.



================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:194
 +------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
-| device extension             | requires directive (unified shared memory)                   | :good:`done`             |                                                                       |
+| device extension             | requires directive                                           | :good:`done`             |                                                                       |
 +------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------
kkwli0 wrote:
> jdoerfert wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > We have support only for unified memory, so must be `partial`
> > Let's keep the explicit ` (unified shared memory) -> done ` line and add one for the others as not done.
> @abataev It makes sense to make it `partial`.
> 
> @jdoerfert  Keeping that line can be confusing.  Line 196 is clear to indicate that the unified_address and unified_shared_memory parts of the requires directive is done.
Fair point. thx.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:216
 +------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+| device extension             | pointer attachment                                           | :none:`unclaimed`        |                                                                       |
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> Is this for Fortran?
No also C/C++.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:240
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+| misc extension               | prevent new type definitions in clauses                      | :none:`unclaimed`        |                                                                       |
 +------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> kkwli0 wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > What is this?
> > This is a clarification. The spec add restrictions to declare new type on iterators, declare reduction and declare mapper [49:11; 308:17; 327:26]
> Would be good to put these links to the doc to make it clear
> Would be good to put these links to the doc to make it clear

Agreed. We have the HTML version of the standard online so we can do this "easily" but it will cost someone time and require to change the table layout. Let's postpone it for now until someone find some spare minutes.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:242
 +------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
-| misc extensions              | prevent new type definitions in clauses                      | :none:`unclaimed`        |                                                                       |
+| memory model extension       | memory model update                                          | :none:`unclaimed`        |                                                                       |
 +------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> kkwli0 wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > What kind of memory model update?
> > We add five _memory-order-clause_s in the atomic directive - `seq_cst`, `acq_rel`, `release`, `acquire` and `relaxed` to support the memory model.
> I would add as much as possible info about expected features to the doc, if possible
I guess if they are unclaimed or done we can just list them in the description:
  `memory model update (seq_cst, acq_rel, ...)`
and if we ever support a subset only we can make new rows for them.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901