lebedev.ri added a comment. In D61827#1499306 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61827#1499306>, @hintonda wrote:
> In D61827#1499303 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61827#1499303>, @torbjoernk > wrote: > > > In D61827#1499184 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61827#1499184>, @lebedev.ri > > wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I have to admit that I have very little experience with OpenMP and haven't > > thought of this at all. Thank you very much for bringing this up. > > > > Would it help to extend the exclusion AST matcher for iterator-based loops > > by an exclusion for loops with an ancestor of `ompExecutableDirective`?: > > > > return forStmt( > > unless(anyOf(isInTemplateInstantiation(), > > hasAncestor(ompExecutableDirective()))), > > > > > As a general rule, don't add anything that doesn't include a test. > > Since this "false positive" is apparently untestable, How so? In D61827#1499306 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61827#1499306>, @hintonda wrote: > In D61827#1499303 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61827#1499303>, @torbjoernk > wrote: > > > In D61827#1499184 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61827#1499184>, @lebedev.ri > > wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist. Most tests of this sort are > mocked up to emulate the problem so you can verify it exists and the fix > actually addresses it. 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
