ABataev added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40752#945571, @jdenny wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40752#945255, @ABataev wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40752#945234, @jdenny wrote: > > > > > r319774 works for my current use cases. Thanks. > > > > > > While we're on this topic, do you happen to know the rationale behind the > > > OpenMP restriction for which err_omp_union_type_not_allowed diagnoses > > > violations? I googled but couldn't find the rationale. If you would > > > prefer that I ask this in a different forum, would you please suggest > > > one? Thanks. > > > > > > You cannot map the member of the union, but you can map the whole union. > > Mapping of separate members is not allowed because you will definitely have > > troubles with overlapping memory for union members. > > > Thanks for that clarification. Is there any way to word the error message > "mapped storage cannot be derived from a union" to make this point clearer? > I'm thinking "an individual member of" instead of "derived from" would help. > Does that work ok? > > > You can try it now, there should no more error messages > > Yes. Thanks. I agree, that error message does not sound quite good. Maybe, `mapping of union members is not allowed`? https://reviews.llvm.org/D40752 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
