ye-luo added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/OpenMP/target_data_use_device_addr_codegen_ptr.cpp:14 + { + #pragma omp target data use_device_addr(x) + { ---------------- doru1004 wrote: > ye-luo wrote: > > In my understanding of the spec. > > `map(tofrom:x[0:256])` only maps the memory segment that x points to. x > > itself as a pointer scalar is not mapped. > > use_device_addr(x) should fail to find the map of x scalar. > > 5.2 spec. > > If the list item is not a mapped list item, it is assumed to be accessible > > on the target device. > > To me, it seems just keep &x as it was, in this case &x remains a host > > address. > > > > But in your patch description, it seems treating x differently from a > > scalar. > > > > I also applied your patch on main and got segfault because the x has a > > value of device address and x[0] fails. This should be the behavior of > > use_device_ptr instead of use_device_addr. > > To me, it seems just keep &x as it was, in this case &x remains a host > > address. > > So does this mean that if I do something like this in the target data I > should get different addresses for x: > > > ``` > #pragma omp target data use_device_ptr(x) > { > fprintf(stderr, "x: %p\n", __LINE__, x); > } > > #pragma omp target data use_device_addr(x) > { > fprintf(stderr, "x: %p\n", __LINE__, x); > } > ``` > > > > I also applied your patch on main and got segfault because the x has a > > value of device address and x[0] fails. > > That's my fault x[0] was the wrong thing to use actually. > > When you have an outer `target data map(x)`, then two printf differ. If there is no outer `map(x)`, two printf should be identical. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133694/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133694 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits