Meinersbur added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:17274
+ if (IsTopScope && Kind != Sema::TryCapture_Implicit) {
+ ByRef = (Kind == Sema::TryCapture_ExplicitByRef);
+ } else if (S.getLangOpts().OpenMP && RSI->CapRegionKind == CR_OpenMP) {
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> This doesn't impact anyone else negatively? I don't understand why we need
> this now.
This taken from how implicit lambda captures are handled: for nested lambdas,
only the outermost lambda captures byval, the remaining use that existing copy.
I think there are no other uses of CaptureStmt that have explicit captures, I
am introducing the first.
With removing the assertion and therefore effectively allowing byval captures
for CapturedStmts, I intended to make its behaviour resemble that of lambdas
(`captureInLambda`).
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Frontend/OpenMP/OMPIRBuilder.cpp:986
+ if (BodyGenCB)
+ BodyGenCB(CL->getBodyIP(), CL->getIndVar());
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> I'm unsure I understand when it would make sense to not have a body generator.
As done by EmitOMPCanonicalLoop, the body code can also added to
`CL->getBodyIP()` to the CL returned by this function. Calling the callback is
the last action done anyway, using the callback just makes the code harder to
understand.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D94973/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D94973
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
