lebedev.ri added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/StmtOpenMP.h:335
+ llvm::Optional<Stmt *> getStructuredBlockImpl() const {
+ return const_cast<Stmt *>(getInnermostCapturedStmt()->getCapturedStmt());
----------------
lebedev.ri wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > No need to insert it into each class, just add:
> > > > ```
> > > > Stmt * OMPExecutableDirective::getStructuredBlock() const {
> > > > if (!hasAssociatedStmt() || !getAssociatedStmt())
> > > > return nullptr;
> > > > if (auto *LD = dyn_cast<OMPLoopDirective>(this))
> > > > return LD->getBody();
> > > > return getInnermostCapturedStmt()->getCapturedStmt();
> > > > }
> > > > ```
> > > I absolutely can do that, you are sure that is the most future-proof
> > > state?
> > > In particular, i want to re-point-out that if it's implemented like this,
> > > in the base class, then the sub-class may(will) not even know about this
> > > function,
> > > and thus 'forget' to update it, should it not be giving the correct
> > > answer for
> > > that new specific OpenMP executable directive.
> > >
> > > You are sure it's better to implement it in the `OMPExecutableDirective`
> > > itself?
> > Yes, I'm sure. It is the universal solution and all future classes must be
> > compatible with it. If they are not, then they are incorrect.
> Aha! Well, ok then.
>
> Do you also suggest that `Optional<>` is too fancy?
> Would it be better to do this instead?
> ```
> bool isStandaloneDirective() const {
> return !hasAssociatedStmt() || !getAssociatedStmt();
> }
>
> // Requires: !isStandaloneDirective()
> Stmt *OMPExecutableDirective::getStructuredBlock() const {
> assert(!isStandaloneDirective() && "Standalone Executable OpenMP directives
> don't have structured blocks.")
> if (auto *LD = dyn_cast<OMPLoopDirective>(this))
> return LD->getBody();
> return getInnermostCapturedStmt()->getCapturedStmt();
> }
> ```
> Hm, maybe that actually conveys more meaning..
Great, that doesn't work, and highlights my concerns.
`target enter data` / `target exit data` / `target update` are stand-alone
directives as per the spec,
but not as per that `isStandaloneDirective()` check ^.
https://godbolt.org/z/0tE93s
Is this a bug, or intentional?
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59214/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59214
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
