aaron.ballman added a comment. In D61509#1512090 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509#1512090>, @jdenny wrote:
> Now that D61643 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61643> is pushed, we're back to > this patch. My recollection is there are two remaining issues: > > 1. Should we store both the `#pragma` location and the `omp` location in the > AST, or is it fine to just replace the latter location with the former? If > we choose to store both, we still haven't settled on an implementation, which > likely will involve non-trivial changes in the parser and the AST. For > OpenMP, @ABataev said replacing should be fine. Storing both would be nice, but not required, IMO. Storing the location of the pragma "namespace" would be useful for third-party tooling purposes, but I don't think we have a need for it in the frontend otherwise. > 2. Should we adjust all non-OpenMP pragmas in the same way immediately, or > should we adjust them gradually as the need arises? We usually do incremental improvement unless that's impossible or would leave things in a badly inconsistent state. I don't think we need to adjust everything immediately in this case, but we should strive for quickly reaching eventual consistency. > If the answers to the above questions are "replace" and "gradually", then I > believe this patch is ready. (It's just a tweak in > `clang/lib/Parse/ParsePragma.cpp` and a ton of test updates.) > > By the way, in D61643 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61643>, @Meinersbur pointed > out that @rsmith also wanted to see diagnostics point at a `#pragma`: > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41514#c1 > > If @rsmith and others don't get a chance to chime in, then I suppose an RFC > should be next. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
