jdenny added a comment. In D61509#1491537 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509#1491537>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D61509#1491397 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509#1491397>, @jdenny wrote: > > > In D61509#1491209 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509#1491209>, @ABataev wrote: > > > > > In D61509#1491204 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509#1491204>, @lebedev.ri > > > wrote: > > > > > > > In D61509#1491158 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509#1491158>, @jdenny > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > In D61509#1491119 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509#1491119>, > > > > > @lebedev.ri wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I recommend to split this into two parts - changing > > > > > > `PragmaIntroducerKind Introducer` to > > > > > > `struct NameMe { PragmaIntroducerKind Kind; SourceLocation Loc};`, > > > > > > and the actual openmp change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I'll work on that. What about NameMe = PragmaIntroducer? > > > > > > > > > > > > Could work. And then move `PragmaIntroducerKind` into it. > > > > I believe this part of the refactoring is completely uncontroversial. > > > > > > > > >> For that change, just basing off the clang-tidy diff, neither > > > > >> variant is ideal, > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean that it's better for diagnostics that point to a pragma > > > > > not to include the `#pragma` in their locations? If so, why is that? > > > > > > > > I'm not sure either one is better than the other one. > > > > > > > > I have two concerns: > > > > > > > > - I fear this would result in inconsistency with other pragmas, since > > > > this will only change openmp-ones. I don't know if it will be accepted > > > > to migrate the rest of them in the same way. > > > > - This use-case requires having the location of `#pragma`, so the > > > > entire AST is migrating to store it. But the current location will no > > > > longer be accessible from AST. > > > > > > > > I see two paths forward: > > > > - Mail cfe-dev, and suggest to do this change for *all* pragmas. Either > > > > this is ok for all of them, or none of them. > > > > - Moar abstractions - how about **not** changing the startloc of openmp > > > > directives, > > > > > > > > > My alternative proposal was exactly that. A difficulty is how to pass the > > `#pragma` location to the OpenMP AST node constructors. > > `PragmaOpenMPHandler::HandlePragma` passes locations via the > > `tok::annot_pragma_openmp` and `tok::annot_pragma_openmp_end` tokens, so > > where do we pass this new location? I proposed creating a third token, and > > Alexey was concerned over the parsing problems that would create. > > > > >> but instead add some baseclass to `OMPDirective` class (& every other > > >> class that is created from pragma), that would record the > > >> `PragmaIntroducer`? > > > > I agree that a base class would be a nice way to extend all pragma classes > > with the `PragmaIntroducer`. > > > > > I'm against this solution. I don't see any reasons why we should do this. > > > Instead, we're getting a lot of pain with parsing and maintenance. > > > > One way to avoid creating an extra token would be to widen the `Token` > > class to store the additional location. The `Token` documentation says > > it's not intended to be space efficient. How does that sound to people? > > > That was my proposal, yes. @ABataev : Does that address your concerns? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
