gribozavr marked an inline comment as done.
gribozavr added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/openmp/ExceptionEscapeCheck.cpp:53
+ Finder->addMatcher(ompExecutableDirective(
+ unless(isStandaloneDirective()),
+ hasStructuredBlock(stmt().bind("structured-block")))
----------------
Do we need the `unless`? `hasStructuredBlock()` just won't match standalone
directives.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/openmp/ExceptionEscapeCheck.cpp:65
+ Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<Stmt>("structured-block");
+ assert(StructuredBlock && "Expected to get soe OpenMP Structured Block.");
+
----------------
soe => some
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/openmp/ExceptionEscapeCheck.cpp:69
+ utils::ExceptionAnalyzer::State::Throwing)
+ return; // No exceptions appear to escape out of the structured block.
+
----------------
appear to => have been proven to
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/openmp/ExceptionEscapeCheck.cpp:72
+ // FIXME: We should provide more information about the exact location where
+ // the exception is thrown, maybe the full path the exception escapes
+
----------------
+1
================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/openmp-exception-escape.rst:21
+
+.. option:: IgnoredExceptions
+
----------------
`IgnoredExceptionTypes`?
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/bugprone-exception-escape-openmp.cpp:16
+ ;
+ // FIXME: this really should be caught by bugprone-exception-escape.
+ // https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41102
----------------
Shouldn't the function be marked with `noexcept` for
`bugprone-exception-escape` to catch it? It does not know about OpenMP.
Are you suggesting that `bugprone-exception-escape` should subsume your new
OpenMP-specific check?
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59466/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59466
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
