[PATCH] D143704: [flang] Part one of Feature List action

elmcdonough updated this revision to Diff 502691. elmcdonough retitled this revision from "[Flang] Part one of Feature List action" to "[flang] Part one of Feature List action". elmcdonough added a comment. Allow for plugin to parse semantically incorrect files. Repository: rG LLVM Github

[PATCH] D143704: [Flang] Part one of Feature List action

elmcdonough updated this revision to Diff 501919. elmcdonough added a comment. Clang format Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143704/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143704 Files: flang/examples/CMakeLists.txt

[PATCH] D143704: [Flang] Part one of Feature List action

elmcdonough updated this revision to Diff 501720. elmcdonough edited the summary of this revision. elmcdonough removed reviewers: klausler, clementval. elmcdonough added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: sstefan1. Tests + total coverage of elements inside dump-parse-tree.h Repository: rG

[PATCH] D143704: [Flang] Part one of Feature List action

awarzynski added a comment. In D143704#4150680 , @jdoerfert wrote: > can we have a test? +1 Comment at: flang/examples/FeatureList/FeatureList.cpp:34 + +struct ASTVisitor { +private: There is no AST in Flang - could

[PATCH] D143704: [Flang] Part one of Feature List action

jdoerfert added a comment. can we have a test? Comment at: flang/examples/FeatureList/FeatureList.cpp:605 + template bool Pre(const std::variant &) { return true; } + template void Post(const std::variant &) {} +}; Can you record the features we missed so

[PATCH] D143704: [Flang] Part one of Feature List action

elmcdonough updated this revision to Diff 498561. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143704/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143704 Files: flang/examples/CMakeLists.txt flang/examples/FeatureList/CMakeLists.txt

[PATCH] D143704: [Flang] Part one of Feature List action

elmcdonough added a comment. Thank you all for your feedback. We're putting the second part off for now and I'm going to retool this as a plugin. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143704/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143704

[PATCH] D143704: [Flang] Part one of Feature List action

jdoerfert added a comment. > However, it should be considered harmful to make the TODO macro always > associate with some syntactic source artifact. It would also be unwise to > redefine TODO from a halt semantics to a "just keep going and see what > happens" semantics. @schweitz Why? What's

[PATCH] D143704: [Flang] Part one of Feature List action

kiranchandramohan added a comment. FWIW, We have a plugin (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/main/flang/examples/FlangOmpReport) that goes over the parse-tree and reports all the OpenMP constructs and clauses seen. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION

[PATCH] D143704: [Flang] Part one of Feature List action

schweitz added a comment. I should've mentioned in my comment that the TODO macros are meant to be deleted. Some day, there will be no more TODOs and there should be a huge celebration. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143704/new/

[PATCH] D143704: [Flang] Part one of Feature List action

schweitz added a comment. In D143704#4130124 , @jdoerfert wrote: > In D143704#4130062 , @clementval > wrote: > >> Where is this coming from? Did I miss where this was discussed. > > It's discussed here, for now.