ABataev marked an inline comment as done. ABataev added a comment. In D64356#1574981 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64356#1574981>, @NoQ wrote:
> Ok, so i think i more or less understand where this is going and i like it! > My only concern about making sure that used-expressions don't appear in both > CFGs; and, even then, it's likely that i'm wrong. > > +@rsmith just in case he has any immediate thoughts on this. What "both" CFGs do you mean? ================ Comment at: include/clang/AST/StmtOpenMP.h:292 + /// reduction, linear and firstprivate clauses, etc. + void for_each_used_expr(llvm::function_ref<void(Expr *)> Fn) const; }; ---------------- NoQ wrote: > This whole `X.for_each(λ)` idiom doesn't seem to be popular in LLVM; people > seem to prefer to write an iterator and then use the generic `for_each(X, λ)` > over it. > > (i don't really care) I can try to add the iterator instead. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64356/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64356 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
