ABataev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOpenMP.cpp:15442-15443
+ CurComponents.emplace_back(CurE, nullptr);
+ } else if (auto *CurE = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(E)) {
+ E = CurE->getLHS()->IgnoreParenImpCasts();
} else {
----------------
cchen wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > cchen wrote:
> > > cchen wrote:
> > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > Why just the LHS is analyzed? Also, what about support for other
> > > > > expressions, like casting, call, choose etc., which may result in
> > > > > lvalue?
> > > > 1. LHS: I'll fix that
> > > > 2. I'll add support for casting, call, etc
> > > > 3. For "choose" are you referring to something like (a < b ? b : a)?
> > > For the handling of BinaryOperator, I'm not sure why should we handle RHS
> > > since the possible source code I can imagine is `*(ptr+l)` or something
> > > like `(ptr+l)[3]`.
> > `*(2+ptr)` is correct too. And, btw, `3[ptr+1]` too, especially in C.
> > Moreover, something like `*(b+c)` is also allowed. That's why I said that
> > better to avoid deep analysis of lvalues, there are too many combinations
> > and better to switch to something basic.
> But at least we need the base declaration for motion/map clause, right? And
> to achieve this, we need to peel the expression to get the DeclRefExpr.
What's the base declaration in `*(a+b)`?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72811/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72811
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
