tianshilei1992 marked 2 inline comments as done.
tianshilei1992 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOpenMP.cpp:11801-11807
+ } else if (AtomicKind == OMPC_compare_capture) {
+ // TODO: For now we emit an error here and in emitOMPAtomicExpr we ignore
+ // code gen.
+ unsigned DiagID = Diags.getCustomDiagID(
+ DiagnosticsEngine::Error,
+ "atomic compare capture is not supported for now");
+ Diag(AtomicKindLoc, DiagID);
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> tianshilei1992 wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > Better to build a node and emit error in codegen. Without it you're
> > > unable to create ast-print/dump tests, test for
> > > serialization/deserialization etc.
> > IIUC, `OMPC_compare_capture` will only be used in Sema and CodeGen to tell
> > we actually want `compare_capture` instead of `compare` or `capture`. The
> > corresponding class(es) have no actual use. If I could directly have
> > `OMPC_compare_capture` w/o adding a class, I would like to do it. On the
> > other hand, we already have a node for `compare`, and a node for `capture`,
> > we don't want a node for `compare` and `capture`, especially the spec
> > doesn't say they should be tightly close. That being said, it should not
> > affect other functionality.
> Then why do you need OMPC_compare_capture? Just emit compare and capture and
> check for both of them at the same time.
`OMPC_compare_capture` is the natural way, especially when we call
`emitOMPAtomicExpr`. Of course we can set `Kind` to `OMPC_compare` and add a
boolean argument `bool IsCompareCapture = false`. It's just not as clear as
this way, but TBH not a bad way.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D116261/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D116261
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
