@@ -64,22 +64,23 @@ and provide solutions. Let us know if you have suggestions for improvements!
that <code>const</code> qualified variables without <code>mutable</code>
member are predetermined shared, but as an exception may be specified
in the <code>firstprivate</code> clause. OpenMP 4.0 dropped this rule,
- but in the hope that the incompatible change will be reverted GCC kept
- implementing the previous behavior. Now that for OpenMP 5.0 it has been
+ but in the hope that this incompatible change will be reverted GCC kept
+ the previous behavior. Now that for OpenMP 5.0 it has been
confirmed this is not going to change, GCC 9 started implementing the
- OpenMP 4.0 and later behavior. When not using <code>default</code>
+ OpenMP 4.0 and later behavior. When not using a <code>default</code>
clause or when using <code>default(shared)</code>, this makes no
- difference, but if using <code>default(none)</code>, previously the
- choice was not specify the <code>const</code> qualified variables
- on the construct at all, or specify in <code>firstprivate</code> clause.
- In GCC 9 as well as for OpenMP 4.0 compliance, those variables need
- to be specified on constructs in which they are used, either in
- <code>shared</code> or in <code>firstprivate</code> clause. Specifying
- them in <code>firstprivate</code> clause is one way to achieve
- compatibility with both older GCC versions and GCC 9, another option
+ difference. When using <code>default(none)</code>, previously the
+ choice was not to specify <code>const</code> qualified variables
+ on the construct at all, or specify them in the
+ <code>firstprivate</code> clause.
+ In GCC 9 as well as for OpenMP 4.0 compliance those variables need
+ to be specified on constructs in which they are used, either in a
+ <code>shared</code> or in a <code>firstprivate</code> clause. Specifying
+ them in a <code>firstprivate</code> clause is one way to achieve
+ compatibility with both older GCC versions and GCC 9. Another option
is to drop the <code>default(none)</code> clause. In C++,
<code>const</code> variables with constant initializers which are not
- odr-used in the region, but replaced with their constant initializer
+ odr-used in the region, but replaced with their constant initializer,
are not considered to be referenced in the region for
<code>default(none)</code> purposes.
</p>
@@ -93,8 +94,8 @@ and provide solutions. Let us know if you have suggestions for improvements!
for (int i = 0; i < a; i += b)
;
// The above used to compile with GCC 8 and older, but will
- // not anymore with GCC 9. firstprivate(a, b) clause needs
- // to be added for C, for C++ it could be just firstprivate(a)
+ // not anymore with GCC 9. A firstprivate(a, b) clause needs
+ // to be added for C; for C++ it could be just firstprivate(a)
// to make it compatible with all GCC releases.
}
const int huge_array[1024] wwwdocs: = { ... };
@@ -104,7 +105,7 @@ and provide solutions. Let us know if you have suggestions for improvements!
use (huge_array[i] wwwdocs:);
// Similarly, this used to compile with GCC 8 and older and
// will not anymore. Adding firstprivate(huge_array) is
- // probably undesirable here, so, either
+ // probably undesirable here, so either
// default(none) shared(huge_array) should be used and it will
// only support GCC 9 and later, or default(none) should be
// removed and then it will be compatible with all GCC releases