[PATCH] D90928: [OpenCL] Check for extension string extension lookup

erik2020 updated this revision to Diff 307338. erik2020 added a comment. Added doxygen comments to updated functions Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90928/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90928 Files: clang/include/clang/Basic/OpenCL

[PATCH] D90928: [OpenCL] Check for extension string extension lookup

erik2020 added inline comments. Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/OpenCLOptions.h:47 bool isSupported(llvm::StringRef Ext, const LangOptions &LO) const { +auto E = OptMap.find(Ext); +if (E == OptMap.end()) { Anastasia wrote: > Btw how about we use

[PATCH] D90928: [OpenCL] Check for extension string extension lookup

erik2020 added a comment. In D90928#2405796 , @Anastasia wrote: > Do you think we could improve testing? I presume there is something that > triggers a failure without your change... I'm not really sure how to test this code. Best I can tell, there's no

[PATCH] D90928: [OpenCL] Add assertions to extension lookup

erik2020 updated this revision to Diff 306094. erik2020 added a comment. Changed asserting code to return `false` instead. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90928/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90928 Files: clang/include/clang/Basic/

[PATCH] D90928: [OpenCL] Add assertions to extension lookup

erik2020 added a comment. In D90928#2379322 , @Anastasia wrote: > Ok, it would still segfault but perhaps it is acceptable as this is an > internal frontend only option for now. Would it be better if these functions returned `false` for unknown extension

[PATCH] D90928: [OpenCL] Add assertions to extension lookup

erik2020 created this revision. erik2020 added a reviewer: ldrumm. erik2020 added a project: clang. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, dexonsmith, Anastasia, yaxunl. erik2020 requested review of this revision. Calling any of the `OpenCLOptions::is*()` functions (except `isKnown()`) with an un