ABataev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/OpenMPClause.h:4193
ArrayRef<SourceLocation> MapModifiersLoc,
+ NestedNameSpecifierLoc MapperQualifierLoc,
+ DeclarationNameInfo MapperIdInfo,
----------------
lildmh wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > lildmh wrote:
> > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > Also would be good to pack the parameters into the structure.
> > > Among these parameters:
> > > 1. 2 of them are for modifiers. Since mapper can also be used in `to` and
> > > `from` clauses, it is not good to combine mapper info with them.
> > > 2. 2 of them are mapper info. I can combine `MapperQualifierLoc` and
> > > `MapperIdInfo` into a structure. It's not a big saving though (only
> > > reduce one parameter). Do you want me to do that?
> > > 3. 4 of them are number of vars... It seems not a good idea to combine
> > > them into one structure.
> > > 5. The rest are locations. They are kinda all over the place. It doesn't
> > > seem a good idea to combine them as well.
> > 1. The same structure must be used for `to` and `from` clauses, not a
> > problem.
> > 2-4. you can combine it with the number of vars and locations into one
> > structure, no?
> None of these locations are for mapper, so I think it's not good to combine
> them with mapper.
> Those numbers (`NumVars`, `NumUniqueDeclarations`, `NumComponentLists`,
> `NumComponents`) are not for mapper either. `NumVars` can be viewed as
> partially for mapper, but its main purpose is for the number of list items in
> map clause. So logically, I think they should not be combined with mapper.
> What do you think?
It is not about mapper. We just have too many params in functions and need to
reduce it somehow. I don't care about the logic of the parameters packing.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58074/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58074
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
