ABataev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOpenMP.cpp:11320
+ bool MutexClauseEncountered = false;
+ llvm::SmallSet<OpenMPClauseKind, 2> EncounteredAtomicKinds;
for (const OMPClause *C : Clauses) {
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> tianshilei1992 wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > tianshilei1992 wrote:
> > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > tianshilei1992 wrote:
> > > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > > SmallVector with 2 elements should be enough, no need to use
> > > > > > > SmallSet here.
> > > > > > `SmallVector` doesn't provide `contains`, which we use to check if
> > > > > > `OMPC_compare` and `OMPC_capture` exist at the same time. Using
> > > > > > `SmallVector` requires us to have a complicated comparison, for
> > > > > > example:
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > (EncounteredAtomicKinds[0] == OMPC_compare &&
> > > > > > EncounteredAtomicKinds[1] == OMPC_capture) ||
> > > > > > (EncounteredAtomicKinds[1] == OMPC_compare &&
> > > > > > EncounteredAtomicKinds[0] == OMPC_capture)
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > which is not as neat as `SmallSet`.
> > > > > Use llvm::find
> > > > That is linear time. Why it is better than `SmallSet`?
> > > Because there are only 2 elements, no?
> > It could have more. If user writes it like `atomic compare compare capture
> > capture capture`, then it will have 5 elements. `SmallSet<T>::insert`
> > returns a `pair` and we know if it is already in the set, which I have not
> > added it yet but I'll. `SmallVector` then is not that easy to use. Of
> > course you could say do `llvm::find` beforehand but it's not neat.
> Is this correct at all?
You still can scan over the small vector and check if it has specified clause
already.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D116261/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D116261
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
