From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 812C43857010 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:14:34 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 812C43857010 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1662974074; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rboZ8VmwBU7iuwXyDScM1vgiCkCKSpUsQcZgVJ412kM=; b=RfghskHqV+x+I2Dz3J+8LM7+gR0/3OSYiNibEd6900cJbrwTEMerGtlfk191qkIGtbPG8S FnHaevVQ7ejgRYQrgp9YqyEuTzL/+493+UIvMB1eTjqpBVaSAjiDNSAHLDcdpCYDLRvSb7 cXV/xxQFedMxBZ7jCoWxoxfZsdOgZl4= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-261-z-rQWOR1NVugPbWpynDgig-1; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 05:14:31 -0400 X-MC-Unique: z-rQWOR1NVugPbWpynDgig-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2200811E90; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:14:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.41]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70E57492B04; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:14:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 28C9ERA0166996 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Sep 2022 11:14:28 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 28C9EQQF166995; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 11:14:26 +0200 Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 11:14:26 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Tobias Burnus Cc: gcc-patches Subject: Re: [patch] libgomp.texi: Impl. status fix/addition Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <7833e1c2-c66c-8a6e-8aed-becfe7899eeb@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7833e1c2-c66c-8a6e-8aed-becfe7899eeb@codesourcery.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:04:08AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > This patch is about the OpenMP 5.{1,2} implementation status. > > For omp/ompx/omx, I think it was a bit misleading. omp/ompx (and omx) > are reserved namespaces; for 'omp' nothing needs to be done (either > already implemented or not), while for 'ompx'/'omx' (vendor extension), > the note + footnote tries to describe what happens. – I hope the revised > wording is clearer. > > The other change is about two OpenMP 5.1 items; the first one seems to > get used in some code – 'begin declare target' is essentially the same > as 'declare target' ... 'end declare target' but additionally permits > clauses. > > And the second new item: I think it was regarded as bug fix, but I > personally read it rather as change. The question is as what to read it > and how to handle it? Initially I wrote and thought of it as deprecation > of the previous syntax, i.e. warning but only once the OpenMP version > has been bumped to 5.2's. I now think we could diagnose it earlier – IMO > a warning would be sufficient, but it could also be read it such that an > error is required. – Thoughts about this item + what to implement? IMNSHO we should support it without any diagnostics until the big deprecation day of 5.2 (when we are almost done with 5.2 and add all the -Wdeprecated stuff there). It is very similar to many other 5.2 changes, introduce a new syntax and deprecate the old one. > libgomp.texi: Impl. status fix/addition > > libgomp/ChangeLog: > > * libgomp.texi (OpenMP 5.1 Impl. Status): Add two new minor items. > (OpenMP 5.2 Impl. Status): Improve omp/omx/ompx wording. > > diff --git a/libgomp/libgomp.texi b/libgomp/libgomp.texi > index 3dc467aade0..7db5fab580a 100644 > --- a/libgomp/libgomp.texi > +++ b/libgomp/libgomp.texi > @@ -348,6 +348,9 @@ The OpenMP 4.5 specification is fully supported. > @item Support @code{begin/end declare target} syntax in C/C++ @tab N @tab > @item Pointer predetermined firstprivate getting initialized > to address of matching mapped list item per 5.1, Sect. 2.21.7.2 @tab N @tab > +@item @code{begin declare target} directive @tab N @tab > +@item For Fortran, diagnose placing declarative before/between @code{USE}, > + @code{IMPORT}, and @code{IMPLICIT} as invalid @tab N @tab > @end multitable > > > @@ -362,12 +365,13 @@ to address of matching mapped list item per 5.1, Sect. 2.21.7.2 @tab N @tab > @tab N @tab > @item @code{omp}/@code{ompx}/@code{omx} sentinels and @code{omp_}/@code{ompx_} > namespaces @tab N/A > - @tab warning for @code{omp/ompx} sentinels@footnote{@code{omp/ompx} > - sentinels as C/C++ pragma and C++ attributes are warned for with > + @tab warning for @code{ompx/omx} sentinels@footnote{The @code{ompx} > + sentinel as C/C++ pragma and C++ attributes are warned for with > @code{-Wunknown-pragmas} (implied by @code{-Wall}) and @code{-Wattributes} > (enabled by default), respectively; for Fortran free-source code, there is > - a warning enabled by default and for fixed-source code with > - @code{-Wsurprising} (enabled by @code{-Wall})} > + a warning enabled by default and, for fixed-source code, the @code{omx} > + sentinel is warned for with with @code{-Wsurprising} (enabled by > + @code{-Wall}). Unknown clauses are always rejected with an error.} Two spaces after ., not just one. Otherwise LGTM. Jakub