ABataev added a comment. In D83261#2166766 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83261#2166766>, @Meinersbur wrote:
> In D83261#2162561 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83261#2162561>, @ABataev wrote: > > > 1. OMPChildren class uses standard TrailingObjects harness instead of > > manual calculation. > > > Note that that having a separate object defeats the purpose of > `TrailingObjects` of having just a single allocation per AST node. If we do > separate objects, we could also have member pointers to arrays. I know. Will check what I can do about it. > > > In D83261#2164929 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83261#2164929>, @ABataev wrote: > >> Sure, we can make `OMPChildren` common for declarative and executable >> directives. Do you want me to do it? > > > Yes, I think it would increase its usefulness and remove code duplication of > handling clauses. > >>>> There should be an additional patch, which, I hope, should simplify things >>>> for loop-based directives. >>> >>> OK. What does this patch do? Are you going to upload it as well? >> >> At first, need to deal with this one, at least come to an agreement with the >> design. > > The reviewer list is surprisingly small. Aren't there any others with stakes > in the class hierarchy? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83261/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83261 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
