This patch fuses the RUN lines for most libomptarget tests. The previous patch
D101315 created separate test targets for each supported offloading triple.
This patch updates the RUN lines in libomptarget tests to use a generic run
line independent of the offloading target selected for the lit instance.
In cases, where no RUN line was defined for a specific offloading target,
the corresponding target is declared as XFAIL. If it turns out that a test
actually supports the target, the XFAIL line can be removed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101326
OpenMP TR8 sec. 2.15.6 "target update Construct", p. 183, L3-4 states:
> If the corresponding list item is not present in the device data
> environment and there is no present modifier in the clause, then no
> assignment occurs to or from the original list item.
L10-11 states:
> If a present modifier appears in the clause and the corresponding
> list item is not present in the device data environment then an
> error occurs and the program termintates.
(OpenMP 5.0 also has the first passage but without mention of the
present modifier of course.)
In both passages, I assume "is not present" includes the case of
partially but not entirely present. However, without this patch, the
target update directive misbehaves in this case both with and without
the present modifier. For example:
```
#pragma omp target enter data map(to:arr[0:3])
#pragma omp target update to(arr[0:5]) // might fail on data transfer
#pragma omp target update to(present:arr[0:5]) // might fail on data transfer
```
The problem is that `DeviceTy::getTgtPtrBegin` does not return a null
pointer in that case, so `target_data_update` sees the data as fully
present, and the data transfer then might fail depending on the target
device. However, without the present modifier, there should never be
a failure. Moreover, with the present modifier, there should always
be a failure, and the diagnostic should mention the present modifier.
This patch fixes `DeviceTy::getTgtPtrBegin` to return null when
`target_data_update` is the caller. I'm wondering if it should do the
same for more callers.
Reviewed By: grokos, jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85246
Joachim Protze