================
@@ -3371,6 +3379,20 @@ Sema::ActOnBreakStmt(SourceLocation BreakLoc, Scope
*CurScope) {
if (S->isOpenMPLoopScope())
return StmtError(Diag(BreakLoc, diag::err_omp_loop_cannot_use_stmt)
<< "break");
+
+ // OpenACC doesn't allow 'break'ing from a compute construct, so diagnose if
+ // we are trying to do so. This can come in 2 flavors: 1-the break'able
thing
+ // (besides the compute construct) 'contains' the compute construct, at which
+ // point the 'break' scope will be the compute construct. Else it could be a
+ // loop of some sort that has a direct parent of the compute construct.
+ // However, a 'break' in a 'switch' marked as a compute construct doesn't
+ // count as 'branch out of' the compute construct.
+ if (S->isOpenACCComputeConstructScope() ||
+ (!S->isDirectlySwitchScope() && S->getParent() &&
----------------
alexey-bataev wrote:
No problem we're in the same position. :)
I'm not asking about the very first check, it is ok and I di not ask about it.
What I'm asking is exactly the second part (after OR). I'm suggesting instead
of checking for non-switch just to check explicitly for 'for scope'. "Not
switch scope" is too broad, I just suggest to check for the scopes, which are
not allowed instead (isForScope). I think it is much easier to read and
understand the context.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82543
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
