Hahnfeld added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30135#681354, @ABataev wrote:
> Not sure that this is better because at first, we need to be sure that this
> nesting is allowed. Why do we need to perform some additional analysis if
> nesting is not allowed at all?
`CheckNestingOfRegions` uses `CancelRegion` to determine whether cancel and
cancellation point may be nested inside the parent construct. However with the
current code, `CancelRegion` would only be checked afterwards.
#pragma omp parallel
{
#pragma omp cancellation point unknown
}
therefore produces `region cannot be closely nested inside 'parallel' region`.
After this change, it says `one of 'for', 'parallel', 'sections' or 'taskgroup'
is expected` as in the test case which is better IMO.
Should I try to improve the summary to explain that?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30135
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
