[PATCH] D114379: [OMPIRBuilder] Add support for simd (loop) directive.

[Arnamoy B via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

arnamoy10 added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGStmtOpenMP.cpp:2586-2587
 void CodeGenFunction::EmitOMPSimdDirective(const OMPSimdDirective &S) {
+
+  bool UseOMPIRBuilder = CGM.getLangOpts().OpenMPIRBuilder;
+  if (UseOMPIRBuilder) {
----------------
Meinersbur wrote:
> [nit] Unnecessary whitespace
I took a look at `isSupportedByOpenMPIRBuilder()` and seems like it is more suitable for a check against work-sharing loop construct, not for `simd`.  

And for `simd`, I am not sure what features I should be checking for.  One check I can think of is checking whether any of the not-yet-supported clauses is present in the simd directive or not.  Am I on the right track?  


================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGStmtOpenMP.cpp:2594
+        // Emit the associated statement and get its loop representation.
+        auto DL = SourceLocToDebugLoc(S.getBeginLoc());
+        const Stmt *Inner = S.getRawStmt();
----------------
Meinersbur wrote:
> [style] According to the [[ https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#use-auto-type-deduction-to-make-code-more-readable | LLVM coding standard ]], `auto` is only used in specific cases.
I am inspired by [[ https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/003c9c7457d08888be5deeca7eee84ab5f110bf6/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGStmtOpenMP.cpp#L2611 | existing code ]] though


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D114379/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D114379