jdenny added a comment.

In D56113#1345535 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113#1345535>, @ABataev wrote:

> In D56113#1345529 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113#1345529>, @jdenny wrote:
>
> > In D56113#1345238 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113#1345238>, @ABataev wrote:
> >
> > > >>> By the way, is there any value to keeping the predetermined shared 
> > > >>> for const if -openmp-version=3.1 or earlier?
> > > >> 
> > > >> Yes, you can check for the value of `LangOpts.OpenMP`. For OpenMP 3.1 
> > > >> it will have the value `31`.
> > > > 
> > > > How far back should we take this?  I'm inclined to check for `30` and 
> > > > `31` only and assume anything else is newer, but let me know if we need 
> > > > to check for earlier versions.
> > >
> > > I think `<= 31` is good. Clang always supported only OpenMP 3.1 and 
> > > higher.
> >
> >
> > I'm planning to let this affect the behavior of `default(none)` 
> > (predetermined shared means no explicit attribute is needed).
> >
> > I don't plan to let it affect which version of the diagnostics are 
> > produced.  I think the newer diagnostics are clearer even though they are 
> > not expressed precisely in terms of 3.1 semantics.  Moreover, there are 
> > less cases to test this way.  Let me know if you think this is wrong.  If 
> > you want to review the updated patch first, I'll be posting it soon.
>
>
> It would be good if could keep the original implementation for 3.1.


Should I parameterize all tests affected by this change to test both sets of 
diagnostics?  Or should we pick one version and just add a few additional tests 
for the other?

(I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but again there are many tests to update.)

>> By the way, LangOpts.OpenMP currently defaults to 0.  Should it?
> 
> Yes, it means it is disabled by default.

Ah, it becomes 1 when we have `-fopenmp` but not `-fopenmp-version`.  But still 
`LangOpts.OpenMP <= 31` is true by default, so the new behavior would be off by 
default.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to