hfinkel added a comment. In D71179#1774678 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71179#1774678>, @ABataev wrote:
> In D71179#1774487 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71179#1774487>, @jdoerfert wrote: > > > In D71179#1774471 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71179#1774471>, @ABataev wrote: > > > > > They do this because they have several function definitions with the same > > > name. In our case, we have several different functions with different > > > names and for us no need to worry about overloading resolution, the > > > compiler will do everything for us. > > > > > > I think we talk past each other again. This is the implementation of `omp > > begin/end declare variant` as described in TR8. Bt definition, the new > > variant mechanism will result in several different function definitions > > with the same name. See the two tests for examples. > > > I just don't get it. If begin/end is just a something like #ifdef...endif, > why you just can't skip everything between begin/end if the context does not > match? The patch does this (see in ParseOpenMP.cpp where I asked about the potential inf-loop). But when the definitions are not skipped, then we have to worry about having multiple decls/defs of the same name and the overload priorities. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71179/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71179 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
