jdoerfert accepted this revision. jdoerfert added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D91054#2711654 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91054#2711654>, @fghanim wrote: >> This is generally fine with me, @fghanim @Meinersbur any concerns? > > I have none. All good for me Then LGTM. In D91054#2721194 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91054#2721194>, @Meinersbur wrote: > In D91054#2709712 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91054#2709712>, @jdoerfert wrote: > >> OK, we really need to provide the PrivCB impl so we can start removing clang >> code. >> This is generally fine with me, @fghanim @Meinersbur any concerns? > > It might be OK to start with the functionality that replaces directives with > single runtime calls, but I don't think implementations of code-associated > directives are ready enough. Not sure what "not ready enough" means. If the functionality is equivalent we can switch over and remove duplication, if not, we can't. Take `omp master`, which has associated code, but for which I'm not aware of a reason why we can't switch over. We should double check and if we can't find a problem we do it. There is no point in waiting if we don't look at / work on the stuff. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91054/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91054 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
