From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C034F3858CDA for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 12:35:17 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org C034F3858CDA Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1667392517; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=DPq3xDc9Ohz9i9JhomcjKkSAgJqxWzn8SYO3CktvdYk=; b=aJ5wryd+8YWSvNDt8FFp3U3pRCDvC6TddcFNEVfD/g90oFyyTKGqdAY6W/+XkxkSooYFqB OOs0rWVyfNcHB39YAgUSnbm9Bv+dtK51/tDfClp4yS8U7sqeyWfn5+8inOubsWbp3iAAca OdZKhj7I2+BHFPaTqoz+H1P1rxMPKf0= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-437-k8ElfVqAPzGgxkFQecATtg-1; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 08:35:15 -0400 X-MC-Unique: k8ElfVqAPzGgxkFQecATtg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C46898027EA; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 12:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.193.252]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C28F111D795; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 12:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 2A2CZAMi2092487 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 Nov 2022 13:35:11 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 2A2CZ9WC2092485; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 13:35:09 +0100 Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 13:35:09 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Julian Brown Cc: Jakub Jelinek via Fortran , Tobias Burnus , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Thomas Schwinge Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] OpenMP: lvalue parsing for map clauses (C++) Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <62e4e371468638d2f155c528a5c1e597558a56ac.1647619144.git.julian@codesourcery.com> <20221101215038.08a688e1@squid.athome> <20221102122011.64e750b8@squid.athome> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20221102122011.64e750b8@squid.athome> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 12:20:11PM +0000, Julian Brown wrote: > > But we can't forbid lambdas inside of the map clause expressions, > > they are certainly valid in OpenMP, and IMNSHO shouldn't disallow > > statement expressions, people might not even know they use a > > statement expression, they could just use some standard macro which > > uses a statement expression under the hood. Though your testcases > > look good. > > I meant "forbid array sections within lambdas and statement > expressions" -- FAOD, does that seem reasonable? Technically it might Yeah, my response was to the wording you wrote above the patch, not what is inside of the patch which looked ok. > not be that hard to support e.g. a statement expression with an array > section on the final expression, but that doesn't work at the moment. And I think we want to keep it that way. Jakub