On 18/02/2014 10:59, Dmitri Gribenko wrote:
I don't see any more obvious points for improvement, this patch LGTM, but it
would be great if someone else took a quick look as well.
LGTM as an evolution of the existing code. I'm guessing
OPENMP_SIMD_CLAUSE is stubbed because you intend to fill it out in
subsequent patches?
Longer term I think we should look to finding a better AST
representation for OpenMP directives. There's an amount of do-nothing
boilerplate going on here which could be handled automatically, say
using synthesised AttributedStmts or folding the subclasses into a
single Stmt node.
Alp.
================
Comment at: test/OpenMP/simd_misc_messages.c:34
@@ +33,3 @@
+ if (i == 5)
+ goto L1; // expected-error {{use of undeclared label 'L1'}}
+ else if (i == 6)
----------------
The diagnostic here is not that great, unfortunately.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2815
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
