saiislam added a comment. In D116540#3217689 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D116540#3217689>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> In D116540#3217684 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D116540#3217684>, @saiislam > wrote: > >> 1. I don't know why "pgi" is present here as a vendor. Should it be renamed >> as nvidia instead? @Meinersbur @tra > > It was in the spec list and I would not remove it now. Specs 5.0 and 5.1 linked above doesn't contain PGI as a vendor. But, we can leave it as is. >> 1. Should "cray" be renamed as "hpe" here? @sandoval > > No, both are listed in the spec. Ok. >> 1. Should this vendor list be reordered as per Spec 5.1 >> [https://www.openmp.org/wp-content/uploads/OpenMP-API-Additional-Definitions-2-0.pdf] >> ? > > It was ordered as per that spec, which is just alphabetical. Can you add > `nec` as well and keep the others please. Spec 5.1 has moved "unknown" from last position to the first. Some reordering also due to "hpe or cray" thing as well. > LG, see above. Done. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D116540/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D116540 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
