ye-luo added inline comments.
================
Comment at: openmp/libomptarget/src/omptarget.cpp:233
MapperComponents
- .Components[target_data_function == targetDataEnd ? I : E - I - 1];
+ .Components[target_data_function == targetDataEnd ? E - I - 1 : I];
MapperArgsBase[I] = C.Base;
----------------
ye-luo wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > ye-luo wrote:
> > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > ye-luo wrote:
> > > > > > ye-luo wrote:
> > > > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > > > ye-luo wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > grokos wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > What is the current status of the order of the arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > clang emits? Is it still necessary to traverse arguments
> > > > > > > > > > > in reverse order here?
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, still required
> > > > > > > > > Based on the conversation in
> > > > > > > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D85216
> > > > > > > > > This line of code neither before nor after the change plays
> > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > Shall we fix the order in targetDataEnd first?
> > > > > > > > This change is part of this patch and cannot be committed
> > > > > > > > separately.
> > > > > > > I mean could you fix that issue as a parent of this patch?
> > > > > > > This change is part of this patch and cannot be committed
> > > > > > > separately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If fixing the reordering is part of this patch, I should have seen
> > > > > > "target_data_function == targetDataEnd ?" branches disappear.
> > > > > Nope, just with this patch. It reorders the maps and need to change
> > > > > the cleanup order too.
> > > > It works just like constructors/destructors: allocate in direct order,
> > > > deallocate in reversed to correctly handle map order.
> > > The description says that "present and alloc mappings are processed first
> > > and then all others."
> > > Why the order of arguments in targetDataBegin, targetDataEnd and
> > > targetDataUpdate all get reversed.
> > Because this is for mappers. Mapper maps are ordered by the compiler in the
> > direct order (alloc, maps, delete) but when we need to do exit, we need to
> > release the data in reversed order (deletes, maps, allocs).
> I was not making the question clear. My question about "reverse" is not about
> having a reverse order for targetDataBegin. My question was about "reversing"
> from the the old code. Your change put the opposite order for
> targetDataBegin, targetDataEnd and targetDataUpdate cases.
> I was not making the question clear. My question about "reverse" is not about
> having a reverse order for targetDataBegin. My question was about "reversing"
> from the the old code. Your change put the opposite order for
> targetDataBegin, targetDataEnd and targetDataUpdate cases.
typo correction
I was not making the question clear. My question about "reverse" is not about
having a reverse order for **targetDataEnd**. My question was about "reversing"
from the the old code. Your change put the opposite order for targetDataBegin,
targetDataEnd and targetDataUpdate cases.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86119/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86119
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
