rsmith added a subscriber: rsmith.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/ExprCXX.h:175
@@ +174,3 @@
+ void setConfig(CallExpr *E) {
+ setPreArg(CONFIG, E);
+ setInstantiationDependent(isInstantiationDependent() ||
----------------
Can you assert that the argument is only set once here? (If we set it to
something instantiation-dependent and then to something that isn't
instantiation-dependent, we'd compute the wrong instantiation-dependence flag.)
This function should only be called by the normal constructor and by people who
called the `EmptyShell` constructor.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCUDA/kernel-call.cu:27
@@ -26,1 +26,3 @@
+
+ g1<<<undeclared, 1>>>(42); // expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier
'undeclared'}}
}
----------------
jhen wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up. While trying to find tests that dealt with each
> dependence individually, I came to realize that value and type dependence
> should not be set for the CUDAKernelCallExpr node because it's value is
> always void. So, I removed the propagation of those two dependencies.
>
> Then, while looking for a test that could handle the parameter pack
> information, I realized that it was opening up a whole new can of worms and
> that the triple-angle-bracket syntax does not currently support variadic
> templates. I decided that parameter packs should be handled as a separate
> bug, so I removed them from this patch.
>
> The instantiation dependence propagation is still valid, though, because it
> just represents whether a template parameter is present anywhere in the
> expression, so I left it in. Correctly tracking instantiation dependence in
> enough to fix the bug this patch was meant to fix, so I think it is the only
> change that should be made in this patch.
What happens if an unexpanded pack is used within the kernel arguments of a
CUDA kernel call? Do we already reject that? Are there tests for that somewhere?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15858
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
