ABataev added a comment. In D67978#1683146 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67978#1683146>, @lildmh wrote:
> HI Alexey, the ast print test is already there. Because I didn't check the > mapper for array type before, such code will always not report any error, and > ast print test is correct. Codegen test belongs to the other patch I > released. It fits that patch much better. How is this possible? If we did not have support for the array type, we could not have correct handling of such types in successful tests. ================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaOpenMP.cpp:14751 + assert(Type->getAsArrayTypeUnsafe() && "Expect to get a valid array type"); + Type = Type->getAsArrayTypeUnsafe()->getElementType().getCanonicalType(); + } ---------------- lildmh wrote: > ABataev wrote: > > Why do you want canonical type here? I think it is wrong. It drops all > > language sugar like typedefs etc. But typedefs are not supported in > > mappers, right? > I didn't see that the spec says typedef is not supported in mappers, so I > suppose it should be supported. So I think `getCanonicalType` is necessary > here? Do we check the canonicaL type by default, for non-array type? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67978/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67978 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
