ojhunt wrote: > > > I was going to implement this approach as part of my named loops > > > implementation, but adding a scope flag requires changing the underlying > > > type of `ScopeFlags` to `uint64_t` at this point (because we already have > > > 32 scope flags..., so I thought it’d be better to make that a separate > > > patch. > > > > > > @Sirraide If you're doing a much larger and more important change (zomg, > > labeled continue and break!!!!) I'm going to close this PR as it seems > > silly to fix this once, and then replace it. > > Actually, the named loops implementation proper and this would be more or > less orthogonal, so if you want to keep working on this feel free to; if not > then I’ll take a look at it after named loops is merged (the only reason I > don’t want to make it part of the named loops patch is because I’d have to > fix a bunch of otherwise unrelated tests...).
I'm not super happy with the approach I took to codegen here so I'll keep this one closed and try to get back to it starting fresh this weekend or next week. I really wish there was some way I could come up with to statically enforce that the Sema and codegen ideas of where the continue and break scopes are so I may give some thought to that first. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/152606 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
