h-vetinari added a comment. In D129635#4440613 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129635#4440613>, @animeshk-amd wrote:
> In the multi-company community meeting, the agreement was to move to the 5.1 > version assuming that these features are supported. We shouldn't need to assume - either the features are supported or not. I thought the status page would be the right place for this information, but perhaps it is out of date? Whoever the openmp stakeholders are here should ensure this information is correct and up-to-date! I mean, I'm sure the participants in that meeting know the situation much better than I do, but from what's visible from the outside, it looks unusual to default to something that's not yet fully implemented (for all the usual reasons: assuming there are mistakes found in the not-yet-complete implementation of 5.1, you'll then have to break your users to fix it, whereas until this PR, it was an explicit choice of the consumer to use the not-yet-fully-supported 5.1; it's also unusual in the way that a user will get an error for using features that aren't implemented yet, despite being able to see that the default is 5.1) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129635/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129635 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
