MatzeB added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCoroutine.cpp:724-730
+ Stmt *BodyStmt = S.getBody();
+ CompoundStmt *Body = dyn_cast<CompoundStmt>(BodyStmt);
+ if (Body == nullptr) {
+ Body =
+ CompoundStmt::Create(getContext(), {BodyStmt}, FPOptionsOverride(),
+ SourceLocation(), SourceLocation());
+ }
----------------
ChuanqiXu wrote:
> MatzeB wrote:
> > ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > > MatzeB wrote:
> > > > ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > > > > Can we try to move the logic to `CoroutineStmtBuilder`? That makes me
> > > > > feel better. And it will be helpful to add a comment to tell that
> > > > > we're handling the case the function body is function-try-block.
> > > > I'll add a detailed comment. But would you be fine leaving the
> > > > statements here as-is? The logic only makes sense in the context of
> > > > using the `Body` to create a `CXXTryStmt` below (it's really an effect
> > > > of `CXXTryStmt` only accepting CompountStmt operands).
> > > It looks like you didn't address the comments. Would you like to address
> > > it? I don't mind to address it later myself.
> > Did you mean to create a new function named `CoroutineStmtBuilder` like I
> > did now?
> > Did you mean to create a new function named CoroutineStmtBuilder like I did
> > now?
>
> No, I mean we should construct this in Sema.
>
> > Putting an assert here feels unnecessary and may be in the way if in the
> > future we ever allow other types of single-statement function bodies.
>
> Personally I prefer the more precise style.
> No, I mean we should construct this in Sema.
I'll land the patch as-is then and leave the refactoring to you if necessary.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146758/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146758
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
