For example, without this patch:
```
$ cat test.c
int main() {
int x;
#pragma omp target enter data map(alloc: x)
#pragma omp target exit data map(release: x)
;
return 0;
}
$ clang -fopenmp -fopenmp-targets=nvptx64-nvidia-cuda test.c
$ LIBOMPTARGET_DEBUG=1 ./a.out |& grep 'Creating\|Mapping exists'
Libomptarget --> Creating new map entry with HstPtrBegin=0x00007ffcace8e448, TgtPtrBegin=0x00007f12ef600000, Size=4, Name=unknown
Libomptarget --> Mapping exists with HstPtrBegin=0x00007ffcace8e448, TgtPtrBegin=0x00007f12ef600000, Size=4, updated RefCount=1
```
There are two problems in this example:
* `RefCount` is not reported when a mapping is created, but it might
be 1 or infinite. In this case, because it's created by `omp target
enter data`, it's 1. Seeing that would make later `RefCount`
messages easier to understand.
* `RefCount` is still 1 at the `omp target exit data`, but it's
reported as `updated`. The reason it's still 1 is that, upon
deletions, the reference count is generally not updated in
`DeviceTy::getTgtPtrBegin`, where the report is produced. Instead,
it's zeroed later in `DeviceTy::deallocTgtPtr`, where it's actually
removed from the mapping table.
This patch makes the following changes:
* Report the reference count when creating a mapping.
* Where an existing mapping is reported, always report a reference
count action:
* `update suppressed` when `UpdateRefCount=false`
* `incremented`
* `decremented`
* `deferred final decrement`, which replaces the misleading
`updated` in the above example
* Add comments to `DeviceTy::getTgtPtrBegin` to explain why it does
not zero the reference count. (Please advise if these comments miss
the point.)
* For unified shared memory, don't report confusing messages like
`RefCount=` or `RefCount= updated` given that reference counts are
irrelevant in this case. Instead, just report `for unified shared
memory`.
* Use `INFO` not `DP` consistently for `Mapping exists` messages.
* Fix device table dumps to print `INF` instead of `-1` for an
infinite reference count.
Reviewed By: jhuber6, grokos
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104559
48421ac441