ChuanqiXu accepted this revision.
ChuanqiXu added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Since the patch itself is good and not large. Let me handle the trivial
refactoring later.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCoroutine.cpp:724-730
+ Stmt *BodyStmt = S.getBody();
+ CompoundStmt *Body = dyn_cast<CompoundStmt>(BodyStmt);
+ if (Body == nullptr) {
+ Body =
+ CompoundStmt::Create(getContext(), {BodyStmt}, FPOptionsOverride(),
+ SourceLocation(), SourceLocation());
+ }
----------------
MatzeB wrote:
> ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > MatzeB wrote:
> > > ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > > > Can we try to move the logic to `CoroutineStmtBuilder`? That makes me
> > > > feel better. And it will be helpful to add a comment to tell that we're
> > > > handling the case the function body is function-try-block.
> > > I'll add a detailed comment. But would you be fine leaving the statements
> > > here as-is? The logic only makes sense in the context of using the `Body`
> > > to create a `CXXTryStmt` below (it's really an effect of `CXXTryStmt`
> > > only accepting CompountStmt operands).
> > It looks like you didn't address the comments. Would you like to address
> > it? I don't mind to address it later myself.
> Did you mean to create a new function named `CoroutineStmtBuilder` like I did
> now?
> Did you mean to create a new function named CoroutineStmtBuilder like I did
> now?
No, I mean we should construct this in Sema.
> Putting an assert here feels unnecessary and may be in the way if in the
> future we ever allow other types of single-statement function bodies.
Personally I prefer the more precise style.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146758/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146758
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
