ABataev added a comment. In D56113#1345372 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113#1345372>, @jdenny wrote:
> In D56113#1345337 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113#1345337>, @ABataev wrote: > > > > In D56113#1345238 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113#1345238>, @ABataev > > > wrote: > > > > > >> In D56113#1345232 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113#1345232>, @jdenny > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > In D56113#1345047 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113#1345047>, @ABataev > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > In D56113#1344210 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113#1344210>, @jdenny > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > In D56113#1342879 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113#1342879>, > > >> > > > @ABataev wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > But you will need another serie of patches for `reduction` and > > >> > > > > `linear` clauses to update their error messages. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Those already had their own checks for const. I'm not aware of > > >> > > > any cases not handled, and the test suite does pass after my patch. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Yes, they have the checks for constness, but you need to update > > >> > > those checks to emit this new error message for const values with > > >> > > mutable fields. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > I believe you mean we should reuse `rejectConstNotMutableType` for > > >> > `reduction` and `linear` rather than leave some of its implementation > > >> > duplicated for those. > > >> > > > > > > > > > For reductions, this will change the message from "const-qualified list > > > item cannot be reduction" to "const-qualified variable cannot be > > > reduction". Is that OK? (There are many tests to update, so I want to > > > ask first.) > > > > Mmmm. For the reductions better to keep the original message, because the > > list items also might be the array sections, not only the variables. > > > I need to add a parameter to `rejectConstNotMutableType` to specify whether > decl/def notes are included, and I can reuse that parameter for this purpose. > Whether the diagnostic says "list item" or "variable" will then depend on > what the list item is (variable, array section, etc.) rather than what the > clause is (private, reduction, etc.). I think that's ok. Ok, sounds good CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56113 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
