ABataev added a comment. In D57615#1381427 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57615#1381427>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D57615#1381418 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57615#1381418>, @ABataev wrote: > > > In D57615#1381416 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57615#1381416>, @lebedev.ri > > wrote: > > > > > @ABataev i'm not sure i have fully followed the > > > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40563#c1 > > > > > > > The outlined function is not generated for the loop, so there is no > > > > problem with the standard compatibility. > > > > > > Are you saying that in these cases of `master`, `critical`, `single` > > > directives, `CapturedDecl` should **not** have `nothrow` bit set too? > > > > > > This flag just does not matter for them. > > > I'll rephrase: > Are you opposed to providing the correct (as per the specification) > knowledge that > no exception will escape out of these `CapturedDecl`'s, because that > knowledge > does not matter for the existing sema/codegen, and does not affect produced > IR? Again, CapturedDecl and CapturedStmt is not the representation of the structured block. It is a helper structure for the codegen only. This flag does not help with anything, because for such OpenMP constructs the codegen bypasses CapturedStmt/CapturedDecl. I'm not opposed. I'm saying, that it is not required and not used. If it is not used, why do you want to set it? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57615/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57615 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
