lildmh marked an inline comment as done.
lildmh added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaOpenMP.cpp:14805
+ if (!Type->isStructureOrClassType() && !Type->isUnionType() &&
+ (MapperIdScopeSpec.isSet() || MapperId.getAsString() != "default")) {
+ SemaRef.Diag(Loc, diag::err_omp_mapper_wrong_type);
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> lildmh wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > lildmh wrote:
> > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > lildmh wrote:
> > > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > > Why need an additional check for scope and not "default" id? I
> > > > > > > don't see this additional requirement in the standard.
> > > > > > It's because every variable in map clauses will check this,
> > > > > > including those are not struct, class, or union.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Using this, e.g., mapping an integer won't report error that it
> > > > > > doesn't have a mapper.
> > > > > Maybe just move the check to the end of the function?
> > > > It will do some additional useless work if I move it to the end. I
> > > > don't think it is necessary to move it back.
> > > >
> > > > But if you believe it's better, I can do it.
> > > Could you add tests for this new functionality?
> > I already add the test in declare_mapper_message.c. I think nothing is
> > needed for ast print test.
> I mean, for this error message. I did not see the change in the tests when
> you added this new check.
line 55, 68, 79 in declare_mapper_messages.c is added for this new check.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67978/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67978
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
