[clang] [OpenACC] Implement 'break' and 'continue' errors for Compute Cnstrcts (PR #82543)

[Erich Keane via cfe-commits]

================
@@ -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