ABataev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseOpenMP.cpp:4415-4439
+ } else if (Kind == OMPC_doacross) {
+ // Handle dependence type for the doacross clause.
+ ColonProtectionRAIIObject ColonRAII(*this);
+ Data.ExtraModifier = getOpenMPSimpleClauseType(
+ Kind, Tok.is(tok::identifier) ? PP.getSpelling(Tok) : "",
+ getLangOpts());
+ Data.ExtraModifierLoc = Tok.getLocation();
----------------
jyu2 wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > Can it be unified with depenbd clause parsing? (Maybe in a separate
> > template function)
> I don't really has an idea on how to combine this two with template function.
> Since depend clause in ordered is deprecated in 52, and will be removed,
> should we leave as this?
Even ff it will be removed in 52, it will still stay for OpenMP < 52. Would be
good to try to unify it.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOpenMP.cpp:20694-20700
+ auto *C = OMPDoacrossClause::Create(
+ Context, StartLoc, LParenLoc, EndLoc,
+ IsSource ? OMPC_DOACROSS_source : OMPC_DOACROSS_sink, DepLoc, ColonLoc,
+ Vars, TotalDepCount.getZExtValue());
+ if (DSAStack->isParentOrderedRegion())
+ DSAStack->addDoacrossDependClause(C, OpsOffs);
+ return C;
----------------
Better to create clauses in ActOnDoAcross and ActOnDepend, this function better
to return required data as a struct/class/bolean, etc.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOpenMP.cpp:20701
+ return C;
+ } else {
+ auto *C = OMPDependClause::Create(
----------------
No need for else
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153556/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153556
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
