From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from esa2.mentor.iphmx.com (esa2.mentor.iphmx.com [68.232.141.98]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C62A0383D00C for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 21:27:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org C62A0383D00C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codesourcery.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mentor.com IronPort-SDR: R4RvMgN6wJWGr7tN7v0MqsS09bfQ2CGbYFevYbIGKuvveFRAx2/3Jn7GG1RbTW+h0GZb/Kv1pu mOXHZpYoCXTYqI757QJRrug+kUBqOGLm9fXIapFVNqYfo89oEKcUsBmh0JMk4Wyyuj/3IUEy4O v15ZNGjydPEoK/CO/uQLadeEg8CQx6zErBYIBfUk9drqV41dQ6FMayyEOiN+FeGnqH+TDpvNF9 pC2tcXNzY68n7o+LuP0KDrxjNjNHFBMrLQ09wS8H0BDoJpmqhs16zx7naGWYMxGfDf1S9orjTv vLzq2uf8WuQeQen8viqsEP+z X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,272,1620720000"; d="scan'208";a="63933524" Received: from orw-gwy-01-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.165]) by esa2.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2021 13:27:26 -0800 IronPort-SDR: vNztJ9X5TwRJeyqejtGiQLRVWWFQw7oRz9x8OX+3YVbMb+qTy0qFmmZA4fbp4j4Cl75rjPNTsm xqXWSoYj4qAFn93uVSe1hqwORW5gDWdxLkXpgG+FF9LsYni2BOcJIlzR9qVi318yMuRbv6DWhe 4yHtzzsIy8U8VMZ2B+Tm50Oke/fumu19TVH+LdZxSPgTAjMiYxHc+JXgyg3uJxogruPtGwzC9P 9t8La4zp+/CldoaskbJM7WPw+/3ibNzNxtLvn0qx5YwZALnDG8QmKFioUiyq5DI9qoTSSNic0U Kl4= Subject: Re: [WIP, OpenMP] OpenMP metadirectives support To: Jakub Jelinek CC: GCC Patches References: <8d413974-0068-3a31-6ae5-d36c1be06d06@codesourcery.com> <20210726142902.GW2380545@tucnak> <0000a35d-75a5-3067-b59c-b4f5bde0ea58@codesourcery.com> <20210726195654.GZ2380545@tucnak> <20210726212329.GE2380545@tucnak> From: Kwok Cheung Yeung Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:27:18 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210726212329.GE2380545@tucnak> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.90] X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-02.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.2) To SVR-IES-MBX-04.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.4) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 21:27:29 -0000 On 26/07/2021 10:23 pm, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:19:35PM +0100, Kwok Cheung Yeung wrote: >> In that comment, Deepak says: >> >> So, we decided to keep the target trait static, requiring that the declare >> target directive must be explicit and that the function version must be >> different from the version of the function that may be called outside of a >> target region (with the additional clarification that whether it differs or >> not will be implementation defined). >> >> "the function version must be different from the version of the function >> that may be called outside of a target region": This is what we do not have >> in GCC at the moment - the function versions called within and outside >> target regions are the same on the host. >> >> "whether it differs or not will be implementation defined": So whether a >> function with 'declare target' and a metadirective involving a 'target' >> construct behaves the same or not when called from both inside and outside >> of a target region is implementation defined? >> >> I will leave the treatment of target constructs in the selector as it is >> then, with both calls going to the same function with the metadirective >> resolving to the 'target' variant. I will try to address your other concerns >> later. > > I think you're right, it should differ in the host vs. target version iff > it is in explicit declare target block, my memory is weak, but let's implement > the 5.0 wording for now (and ignore the 5.1 wording later on) and only when > we'll be doing 5.2 change this (and change for both metadirective and > declare variant at that point). > Ok? > Okay, the rest of the metadirective spec is quite enough to be getting on with for now. :-) Thanks Kwok