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

[Kelvin Li via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

kkwli0 marked 13 inline comments as done.
kkwli0 added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:216
 +------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+| device extension             | pointer attachment                                           | :none:`unclaimed`        |                                                                       |
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > Is this for Fortran?
> No also C/C++.
Yep, it is not Fortran only.  We clarify some pointer attachment behavior in 5.0.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:240
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+| misc extension               | prevent new type definitions in clauses                      | :none:`unclaimed`        |                                                                       |
 +------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> 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.
Yes, it involves a significant change in the table if we include the corresponding text change in the table.  In some cases, it is not clear from the original tickets.  I think it is better to leave it as-is.  If change the description can help, I welcome any suggestions.


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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901