jdenny marked 4 inline comments as done.
jdenny added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseOpenMP.cpp:3067-3068
+ unsigned Type = getOpenMPSimpleClauseType(OMPC_map, PP.getSpelling(Tok));
+ if (Type < OMPC_MAP_MODIFIER_unknown)
+ return OMPC_MAP_MODIFIER_unknown;
+ return static_cast<OpenMPMapModifierKind>(Type);
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> Why do we need this?
When called with `OMPC_map`, `getOpenMPSimpleClauseType` can return either an
`OpenMPMapModifierKind` or `OpenMPMapClauseKind` depending on `Tok`. Thus,
without this change, both `isMapModifier` and `isMapType` can return either of
those despite the difference in their names and documentation.
I found that, when `Parser::parseMapTypeModifiers` ignores `present` as if it's
not a modifier because OpenMP < 5.1, then `isMapType` later returns
`OMPC_MAP_MODIFIER_present` and causes the following assert to fail in
`Sema::ActOnOpenMPVarListClause`:
```
assert(0 <= ExtraModifier && ExtraModifier <= OMPC_MAP_unknown &&
"Unexpected map modifier.");
```
To me, the most obvious solution is to fix `isMapType` and `isMapModifier`.
Fortunately, looking in `OpenMPKinds.h`, the enumerator values in
`OpenMPMapModifierKind` and `OpenMPMapClauseKind` are disjoint so we can tell
which we have.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseOpenMP.cpp:3150-3151
+ unsigned Type = getOpenMPSimpleClauseType(OMPC_map, PP.getSpelling(Tok));
+ if (Type > OMPC_MAP_unknown)
+ return OMPC_MAP_unknown;
+ return static_cast<OpenMPMapClauseKind>(Type);
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> Same, why do we need this?
Responded on `isMapModifier`.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83061/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83061
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
