lebedev.ri added a comment. In D57615#1381461 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57615#1381461>, @ABataev wrote:
> In D57615#1381443 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57615#1381443>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > Let's instead solve the problem of structured block not having an AST > > representation. > > > Again, this is not a problem for the compiler. If you want this idiom for the > analyzer, you need to teach the analyzer to handle the AST nodes in > accordance with the OpenMP standard. I'm sorry, but //to me// that just sounds completely wrong. It sounds remotely like the gcc argument of keeping everything in the least modular fashion just so no one does anything bad with it. OpenMP spec gives a pretty good idea when something is an 'structured block'. I'm specifically looking for these OpenMP structured blocks. Are you telling me that i should forget everything i know about the 'goals' of clang AST, (and i do believe it is reasonable to expect to have an `OMPStructuredBlock` opaque entry) and reimplement the 'OpenMP structured blocks' finding in whatever code i'm writing, instead of doing the right thing, and teaching the AST about it? Obviously, said teaching should not have any negative impact on the existing clang OpenMP code. Obviously, everyone's time is limited, and i won't be able to convince anyone to do that //for// me :) I can see just how **quickly** i have derailed this disscussion, in less than 12h. I guess i should stop commenting, and follow "words are cheap, show the code". Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57615/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57615 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
