svenvh added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseStmtAsm.cpp:696 + return StmtError(); + } + ---------------- rjmccall wrote: > svenvh wrote: > > rjmccall wrote: > > > svenvh wrote: > > > > rjmccall wrote: > > > > > You might consider parsing the statement normally and then just > > > > > diagnosing after the fact, maybe in Sema. You'd have to add the > > > > > check in a couple different places, though. > > > > Precisely the reason why I did it in the parser, otherwise we'd have to > > > > duplicate the check in multiple places. > > > The downside of this is that the parser recovery is probably very bad. > > > But since this is asm, it's not likely to matter too much. > > > > > > ...is this *also* really only an OpenCL C++ restriction? Maybe we should > > > read this one as a general restriction that happens to have been > > > overlooked in the OpenCL C spec. > > Yes, `asm` is only explicitly restricted in OpenCL C++. Not sure if it's > > safe to assume `asm` has been overlooked for OpenCL C though, it's not > > explicitly forbidden so people may be using it. > Do you have any contact with the OpenCL committee? You might want to collect > these issues and present them to them. They may just not be aware that `asm` > is just as much a feature in C as it is in C++, and it would be good to > understand what the purpose of the `goto` restriction is. Yes, we can clarify this with Khronos. Shall I leave the `asm` and `goto` restrictions out of this patch for now until we have clarification? https://reviews.llvm.org/D46022 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
