================ @@ -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() && ---------------- erichkeane wrote:
> No problem we're in the same position. :) I'm not asking about the very first > check, it is ok and I did not ask about it. What I'm asking is exactly the > second part (after OR, second part of the logic). 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. Ah! So we don't actually HAVE a `ForScope` as far as I can tell, let alone the `while` or `do-while`: https://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/classclang_1_1Scope.html Perhaps I could change the name of `isDirectlySwitchScope` to be: `isBreakLoop` or something, and have it do the inverse of what `isDirectlySwitchScope` does now? 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