lebedev.ri added a comment. In D61827#1499183 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61827#1499183>, @hintonda wrote:
> In D61827#1499160 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61827#1499160>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > This will now trigger on https://godbolt.org/z/9oFMcB right? > > Just want to point out that this will then have "false-positives" when > > that loop > > is an OpenMP for loop, since range-for loop is not available until OpenMP > > 5. > > > > I don't think this false-positive can be avoided though, if building without > > `-fopenmp` there won't be anything about OpenMP in AST, > > and thus no way to detect this case.. > > > Could you suggest a simple test case that could be added to the test? That > way, instead of just removing the `if else` block, @torbjoernk could try to > handle it. Or perhaps exclude it from the match altogether. As i said, i don't see how this can be avoided in general. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61827/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61827 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
