[PATCH] D62199: [OPENMP][NVPTX]Fix barriers and parallel level counters, NFC.

[Jonas Hahnfeld via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

Hahnfeld added a comment.

In D62199#1517460 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62199#1517460>, @ABataev wrote:

> In D62199#1517437 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62199#1517437>, @hfinkel wrote:
>
> > Alexey, I believe that I understand the distinction that you are making. That's not the way the term is used within the LLVM community. The observable behavior of the compiler and its runtime libraries is what matters. The fact that some implementation technique should not be required to make that observable behavior correct is irrelevant in our usage. The introduction of that technique in order to make the observable behavior correct, where it was not previously correct, is a functionality-changing change to the compiler. Thus, it is not NFC.
>
>
> It is better to express this explicitly in the policy, because it differs from the classical definition.


See https://llvm.org/docs/Lexicon.html#nfc:

> “No functional change”. Used in a commit message to indicate that a patch is a pure refactoring/cleanup. Usually used in the first line, so it is visible without opening the actual commit email.

AFAICS that has nothing to do with "non-functional" requirements. [ We could continue arguing about "implementation constraints" that fix bugs in certain situations being related to functional or non-functional requirements, but this is really not the question. ]


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D62199/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D62199