[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGac430336318a: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC] (authored by kkwli0). Herald added a project: clang. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 Files: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst Index: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst === --- clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst +++ clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst @@ -191,9 +191,11 @@ +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | allow access to the reference count (omp_target_is_present) | :part:`worked on`| | +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | requires directive (unified shared memory) | :good:`done` | | +| device extension | requires directive | :part:`partial` | | +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | clause: unified_address, unified_shared_memory | :good:`done` | D52625,D52359 | +| device extension | clause: unified_shared_memory | :good:`done` | D52625,D52359 | ++--+--+--+---+ +| device extension | clause: unified_address | :part:`partial` | | +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | clause: reverse_offload | :none:`unclaimed parts` | D52780 | +--+--+--+---+ @@ -207,12 +209,14 @@ +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | clause: use_device_addr for target data | :part:`worked on`| | +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | map(replicate) or map(local) when requires unified_shared_me | :part:`worked on`| D55719,D55892 | +| device extension | support close modifier on map clause | :good:`done` | D55719,D55892 | +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | teams construct on the host device | :part:`worked on`| Clang part is done, r371553. | +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | support non-contiguous array sections for target update | :part:`worked on`| |
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
ABataev accepted this revision. ABataev added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LG, but still would be good to add some references to the standard. Some of the features use special wording, which very hard to find in the standard. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
kkwli0 marked 2 inline comments as done. kkwli0 added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:216 +--+--+--+---+ +| device extension | pointer attachment | :none:`unclaimed`| | ++--+--+--+---+ ABataev wrote: > kkwli0 wrote: > > jdoerfert wrote: > > > ABataev wrote: > > > > Is this for Fortran? > > > No also C/C++. > > Yep, it is not Fortran only. We clarify some pointer attachment behavior > > in 5.0. > Could add a reference to the section in the standard? I am not sure if this and another feature should be treated as special cases. If it is not, we will need to add references for all the features. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
kkwli0 updated this revision to Diff 242166. kkwli0 added a comment. Change `requires unified_address` status to partial. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 Files: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst Index: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst === --- clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst +++ clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst @@ -191,9 +191,11 @@ +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | allow access to the reference count (omp_target_is_present) | :part:`worked on`| | +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | requires directive (unified shared memory) | :good:`done` | | +| device extension | requires directive | :part:`partial` | | +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | clause: unified_address, unified_shared_memory | :good:`done` | D52625,D52359 | +| device extension | clause: unified_shared_memory | :good:`done` | D52625,D52359 | ++--+--+--+---+ +| device extension | clause: unified_address | :part:`partial` | | +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | clause: reverse_offload | :none:`unclaimed parts` | D52780 | +--+--+--+---+ @@ -207,12 +209,14 @@ +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | clause: use_device_addr for target data | :part:`worked on`| | +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | map(replicate) or map(local) when requires unified_shared_me | :part:`worked on`| D55719,D55892 | +| device extension | support close modifier on map clause | :good:`done` | D55719,D55892 | +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | teams construct on the host device | :part:`worked on`| Clang part is done, r371553. | +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | support non-contiguous array sections for target update | :part:`worked on`| |
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
ABataev added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:194 +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | requires directive (unified shared memory) | :good:`done` | | +| device extension | requires directive | :good:`done` | | +--+--+--+---+ jdoerfert wrote: > kkwli0 wrote: > > jdoerfert wrote: > > > ABataev wrote: > > > > We have support only for unified memory, so must be `partial` > > > Let's keep the explicit ` (unified shared memory) -> done ` line and add > > > one for the others as not done. > > @abataev It makes sense to make it `partial`. > > > > @jdoerfert Keeping that line can be confusing. Line 196 is clear to > > indicate that the unified_address and unified_shared_memory parts of the > > requires directive is done. > Fair point. thx. As far as I understand we only support parsing/sema for `unified_address`. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:216 +--+--+--+---+ +| device extension | pointer attachment | :none:`unclaimed`| | ++--+--+--+---+ kkwli0 wrote: > jdoerfert wrote: > > ABataev wrote: > > > Is this for Fortran? > > No also C/C++. > Yep, it is not Fortran only. We clarify some pointer attachment behavior in > 5.0. Could add a reference to the section in the standard? Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:238 +--+--+--+---+ -| misc extensions | pointer/reference to pointer based array reductions | :none:`unclaimed`| | +| misc extension | pointer/reference to pointer based array reductions | :none:`unclaimed`| | ++--+--+--+---+ Could you add a reference to the standard? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
kkwli0 added a comment. Ping CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
kkwli0 updated this revision to Diff 239719. kkwli0 marked 2 inline comments as done. kkwli0 added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: jfb. Address review comments and rebase. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 Files: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst Index: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst === --- clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst +++ clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | allow access to the reference count (omp_target_is_present) | :part:`worked on`| | +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | requires directive (unified shared memory) | :good:`done` | | +| device extension | requires directive | :part:`partial` | | +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | clause: unified_address, unified_shared_memory | :good:`done` | D52625,D52359 | +--+--+--+---+ @@ -207,12 +207,14 @@ +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | clause: use_device_addr for target data | :part:`worked on`| | +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | map(replicate) or map(local) when requires unified_shared_me | :part:`worked on`| D55719,D55892 | +| device extension | support close modifier on map clause | :good:`done` | D55719,D55892 | +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | teams construct on the host device | :part:`worked on`| Clang part is done, r371553. | +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | support non-contiguous array sections for target update | :part:`worked on`| | +--+--+--+---+ +| device extension | pointer attachment | :none:`unclaimed`| | ++--+--+--+---+ | atomic extension | hints for the atomic construct | :part:`worked on`| D51233 | +--+--+--+---+ | base language| C11 support | :none:`unclaimed`
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
kkwli0 marked 13 inline comments as done. kkwli0 added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:216 +--+--+--+---+ +| device extension | pointer attachment | :none:`unclaimed`| | ++--+--+--+---+ jdoerfert wrote: > ABataev wrote: > > Is this for Fortran? > No also C/C++. Yep, it is not Fortran only. We clarify some pointer attachment behavior in 5.0. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:240 ++--+--+--+---+ +| misc extension | prevent new type definitions in clauses | :none:`unclaimed`| | +--+--+--+---+ jdoerfert wrote: > ABataev wrote: > > kkwli0 wrote: > > > ABataev wrote: > > > > What is this? > > > This is a clarification. The spec add restrictions to declare new type on > > > iterators, declare reduction and declare mapper [49:11; 308:17; 327:26] > > Would be good to put these links to the doc to make it clear > > Would be good to put these links to the doc to make it clear > > Agreed. We have the HTML version of the standard online so we can do this > "easily" but it will cost someone time and require to change the table > layout. Let's postpone it for now until someone find some spare minutes. Yes, it involves a significant change in the table if we include the corresponding text change in the table. In some cases, it is not clear from the original tickets. I think it is better to leave it as-is. If change the description can help, I welcome any suggestions. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
dreachem added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:210 +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | map(replicate) or map(local) when requires unified_shared_me | :part:`worked on`| D55719,D55892 | +| device extension | map(local) when requires unified_shared_memory | :part:`worked on`| D55719,D55892 | +--+--+--+---+ ABataev wrote: > I assume, it is `done`. I think the description here should be something like "support close modifier on map clause". There is no "local" option for the map clause, and also the use of "close" is not dependent on the specification of the unified_shared_memory requirement. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
jdoerfert added a comment. @kkwli0 I propose you can merge the parts where discussion has reached a consensus while the other parts are resolved. I'm generally fine with this, we can always improve on it further. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:194 +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | requires directive (unified shared memory) | :good:`done` | | +| device extension | requires directive | :good:`done` | | +--+--+--+---+ kkwli0 wrote: > jdoerfert wrote: > > ABataev wrote: > > > We have support only for unified memory, so must be `partial` > > Let's keep the explicit ` (unified shared memory) -> done ` line and add > > one for the others as not done. > @abataev It makes sense to make it `partial`. > > @jdoerfert Keeping that line can be confusing. Line 196 is clear to > indicate that the unified_address and unified_shared_memory parts of the > requires directive is done. Fair point. thx. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:216 +--+--+--+---+ +| device extension | pointer attachment | :none:`unclaimed`| | ++--+--+--+---+ ABataev wrote: > Is this for Fortran? No also C/C++. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:240 ++--+--+--+---+ +| misc extension | prevent new type definitions in clauses | :none:`unclaimed`| | +--+--+--+---+ ABataev wrote: > kkwli0 wrote: > > ABataev wrote: > > > What is this? > > This is a clarification. The spec add restrictions to declare new type on > > iterators, declare reduction and declare mapper [49:11; 308:17; 327:26] > Would be good to put these links to the doc to make it clear > Would be good to put these links to the doc to make it clear Agreed. We have the HTML version of the standard online so we can do this "easily" but it will cost someone time and require to change the table layout. Let's postpone it for now until someone find some spare minutes. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:242 +--+--+--+---+ -| misc extensions | prevent new type definitions in clauses | :none:`unclaimed`| | +| memory model extension | memory model update | :none:`unclaimed`| | +--+--+--+---+ ABataev wrote: > kkwli0 wrote: > > ABataev wrote: > > > What kind of memory model update? > > We add five _memory-order-clause_s in the atomic directive - `seq_cst`, > > `acq_rel`, `release`, `acquire` and `relaxed` to support the memory model. > I would add as much as possible info about expected features to the doc, if > possible I guess if they are unclaimed or done we can just list them in the description: `memory model update (seq_cst, acq_rel, ...)` and if we ever support a subset only we can make new rows for them. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
ABataev added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:242 +--+--+--+---+ -| misc extensions | prevent new type definitions in clauses | :none:`unclaimed`| | +| memory model extension | memory model update | :none:`unclaimed`| | +--+--+--+---+ kkwli0 wrote: > ABataev wrote: > > What kind of memory model update? > We add five _memory-order-clause_s in the atomic directive - `seq_cst`, > `acq_rel`, `release`, `acquire` and `relaxed` to support the memory model. I would add as much as possible info about expected features to the doc, if possible CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
kkwli0 marked 2 inline comments as done. kkwli0 added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:242 +--+--+--+---+ -| misc extensions | prevent new type definitions in clauses | :none:`unclaimed`| | +| memory model extension | memory model update | :none:`unclaimed`| | +--+--+--+---+ ABataev wrote: > What kind of memory model update? We add five _memory-order-clause_s in the atomic directive - `seq_cst`, `acq_rel`, `release`, `acquire` and `relaxed` to support the memory model. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
kkwli0 marked an inline comment as done. kkwli0 added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:194 +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | requires directive (unified shared memory) | :good:`done` | | +| device extension | requires directive | :good:`done` | | +--+--+--+---+ jdoerfert wrote: > ABataev wrote: > > We have support only for unified memory, so must be `partial` > Let's keep the explicit ` (unified shared memory) -> done ` line and add one > for the others as not done. @abataev It makes sense to make it `partial`. @jdoerfert Keeping that line can be confusing. Line 196 is clear to indicate that the unified_address and unified_shared_memory parts of the requires directive is done. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
ABataev added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:240 ++--+--+--+---+ +| misc extension | prevent new type definitions in clauses | :none:`unclaimed`| | +--+--+--+---+ kkwli0 wrote: > ABataev wrote: > > What is this? > This is a clarification. The spec add restrictions to declare new type on > iterators, declare reduction and declare mapper [49:11; 308:17; 327:26] Would be good to put these links to the doc to make it clear CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
kkwli0 marked 2 inline comments as done. kkwli0 added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:240 ++--+--+--+---+ +| misc extension | prevent new type definitions in clauses | :none:`unclaimed`| | +--+--+--+---+ ABataev wrote: > What is this? This is a clarification. The spec add restrictions to declare new type on iterators, declare reduction and declare mapper [49:11; 308:17; 327:26] CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
jdoerfert added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:194 +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | requires directive (unified shared memory) | :good:`done` | | +| device extension | requires directive | :good:`done` | | +--+--+--+---+ ABataev wrote: > We have support only for unified memory, so must be `partial` Let's keep the explicit ` (unified shared memory) -> done ` line and add one for the others as not done. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
ABataev added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:194 +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | requires directive (unified shared memory) | :good:`done` | | +| device extension | requires directive | :good:`done` | | +--+--+--+---+ We have support only for unified memory, so must be `partial` Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:210 +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | map(replicate) or map(local) when requires unified_shared_me | :part:`worked on`| D55719,D55892 | +| device extension | map(local) when requires unified_shared_memory | :part:`worked on`| D55719,D55892 | +--+--+--+---+ I assume, it is `done`. Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:216 +--+--+--+---+ +| device extension | pointer attachment | :none:`unclaimed`| | ++--+--+--+---+ Is this for Fortran? Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:240 ++--+--+--+---+ +| misc extension | prevent new type definitions in clauses | :none:`unclaimed`| | +--+--+--+---+ What is this? Comment at: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst:242 +--+--+--+---+ -| misc extensions | prevent new type definitions in clauses | :none:`unclaimed`| | +| memory model extension | memory model update | :none:`unclaimed`| | +--+--+--+---+ What kind of memory model update? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D72901: [OpenMP] [DOCS] Update OMP5.0 feature status table [NFC]
kkwli0 created this revision. kkwli0 added reviewers: ABataev, RaviNarayanaswamy, jdoerfert. Herald added a subscriber: guansong. Add missing OMP5.0 features. https://reviews.llvm.org/D72901 Files: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst Index: clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst === --- clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst +++ clang/docs/OpenMPSupport.rst @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | allow access to the reference count (omp_target_is_present) | :part:`worked on`| | +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | requires directive (unified shared memory) | :good:`done` | | +| device extension | requires directive | :good:`done` | | +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | clause: unified_address, unified_shared_memory | :good:`done` | D52625,D52359 | +--+--+--+---+ @@ -207,12 +207,14 @@ +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | clause: use_device_addr for target data | :part:`worked on`| | +--+--+--+---+ -| device extension | map(replicate) or map(local) when requires unified_shared_me | :part:`worked on`| D55719,D55892 | +| device extension | map(local) when requires unified_shared_memory | :part:`worked on`| D55719,D55892 | +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | teams construct on the host device | :part:`worked on`| Clang part is done, r371553. | +--+--+--+---+ | device extension | support non-contiguous array sections for target update | :part:`worked on`| | +--+--+--+---+ +| device extension | pointer attachment | :none:`unclaimed`| | ++--+--+--+---+ | atomic extension | hints for the atomic construct | :part:`worked on`| D51233 | +--+--+--+---+ | base language| C11 support | :none:`unclaimed`| | @@
