jdoerfert added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaLambda.cpp:999-1002
+ // OpenMP lambdas might get assumumption attributes.
+ if (LangOpts.OpenMP)
+ ActOnFinishedFunctionDefinitionInOpenMPAssumeScope(Method);
+
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> Are there any other function-like constructs that also should have markings?
> Coroutines maybe?
Hm, can we postpone coroutines for now?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOpenMP.cpp:3203
+ auto *AA = AssumptionAttr::Create(Context, llvm::join(Assumptions, ","),
Loc);
+ // Disable assumes in OpenMP simd mode.
+ if (DKind == llvm::omp::Directive::OMPD_begin_assumes) {
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> How this comment relates to the code?
Leftover.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOpenMP.cpp:3207
+ } else {
+ assert(DKind == llvm::omp::Directive::OMPD_assumes && "");
+ OMPAssumeGlobal.push_back(AA);
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> Add a message in for the assertion
Good catch!
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOpenMP.cpp:3217
+ while (Ctx->getParent())
+ Ctx = Ctx->getParent();
+ DeclContexts.push_back(Ctx);
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> Maybe, better to use `getLexicalParent`? `getParent` returns semantic parent,
> while `getLexicalParent` - the lexical parent. Do you need to mark the
> declarations in the lexical context or in the semantic context?
I go to the top, should not matter. I want all declarations so I start at the
top most scope, then traverse everything. I go with lexical now.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91980/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91980
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
