Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Tobias Burnus wrote:
While I expect more changes, I want to cleanup my stashed changes.
Good approach!
+ The <code>destory</code> now optionally accepts the depend object as
+ argument.
Is "depend object" a well known technical term in that context? And is it
"the depend object" or "a depend object"?
In this context is well known; the 'destroy' clause only exists for the
'depobj' directive and the still unimplemented 'interop' directive.
In OpenMP 5.1, the syntax was:
omp_depend_t obj;
#pragma omp depobj(obj) destroy
In OpenMP draft 6.0 (TR11/T12):
#pragma omp depobj(obj) destroy(obj)
In OpenMP 5.2, both are variants valid (deprecating the 5.1 syntax).
As there is only a single depend object 'obj' per directive, even when
specified twice, I think talking about "the" makes sense.
(I opened a specification issue discuss about avoiding the duplication -
and to clarify a couple of other issues related to 'destroy'.)
Tobias
