================
@@ -2374,86 +2374,209 @@ Parser::DeclGroupPtrTy
Parser::ParseOpenMPDeclarativeDirectiveWithExtDecl(
case OMPD_unknown:
Diag(Tok, diag::err_omp_unknown_directive);
break;
- case OMPD_parallel:
- case OMPD_simd:
- case OMPD_tile:
- case OMPD_unroll:
- case OMPD_task:
- case OMPD_taskyield:
+ default:
+ switch (getDirectiveCategory(DKind)) {
+ case Category::Executable:
+ case Category::Meta:
+ case Category::Subsidiary:
+ case Category::Utility:
+ Diag(Tok, diag::err_omp_unexpected_directive)
+ << 1 << getOpenMPDirectiveName(DKind);
+ break;
+ default:
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ while (Tok.isNot(tok::annot_pragma_openmp_end))
+ ConsumeAnyToken();
+ ConsumeAnyToken();
+ return nullptr;
+}
+
+StmtResult Parser::ParseOpenMPExecutableDirective(
+ ParsedStmtContext StmtCtx, OpenMPDirectiveKind DKind, SourceLocation Loc,
+ bool ReadDirectiveWithinMetadirective) {
+ bool HasAssociatedStatement = true;
+
+ switch (DKind) {
----------------
mikerice1969 wrote:
Is it possible to use the Association somehow here instead of the switch?
So when a new directive is added we don't have to update this code?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94691
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
