[PATCH] D146758: Fix codegen for coroutine with function-try-block

[Matthias Braun via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

MatzeB added inline comments.


================
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());
+      }
----------------
ChuanqiXu wrote:
> 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.
> No, I mean we should construct this in Sema.

I'll land the patch as-is then and leave the refactoring to you if necessary.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D146758/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146758