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

[Alexey Bataev via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

ABataev added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:194
 +------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
-| device extension             | requires directive (unified shared memory)                   | :good:`done`             |                                                                       |
+| device extension             | requires directive                                           | :good:`done`             |                                                                       |
 +------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> 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.
As far as I understand we only support parsing/sema for `unified_address`.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:216
 +------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+| device extension             | pointer attachment                                           | :none:`unclaimed`        |                                                                       |
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------
kkwli0 wrote:
> 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.
Could add a reference to the section in the standard?


================
Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:238
 +------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
-| misc extensions              | pointer/reference to pointer based array reductions          | :none:`unclaimed`        |                                                                       |
+| misc extension               | pointer/reference to pointer based array reductions          | :none:`unclaimed`        |                                                                       |
++------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------
Could you add a reference to the standard?


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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901