lebedev.ri added a comment.

In D57615#1381428 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57615#1381428>, @ABataev wrote:

> 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.


Okay, enough is enough :)
I think a very important phrase was repeated a number of times, and it 
highlights the **actual** problem here:

> is not the representation of the structured block



> 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?

Then could you please revoke LG from D57594 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57594>.


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

Reply via email to