jlebar added a comment.
Without reading the patch in detail (sorry) but looking mainly at the testcase:
It looks like we're not checking how overloading and `__host__ __device__`
functions play into this. Maybe there are some additional edge-cases to
explore/check.
Just some examples:
Will we DTRT and parse `bar` call as calling the `device` overload of `bar` in
__host__ void bar() {}
__device__ int bar() { return 0; }
__host__ __device__ void foo() { int x = bar(); }
template <void (*devF)()> __global__ void kernel() { devF();}
kernel<foo>();
? Also will we know that we don't have to codegen `foo` for host (so `foo` is
actually able to do things that only device functions can)?
Another one: How should the following template be instantiated?
__host__ constexpr int n() { return 0; }
__device__ constexpr int n() { return 1; }
template <int> __global__ void kernel() {}
kernel<n()>
Presumably the call to `n` should be the host one? That seems correct to me,
but then it's pretty odd that a function pointer template argument would point
to a *device* function. Maybe that's the right thing, but I bet I can come up
with something weird, like:
__host__ void bar() {}
__device__ int bar() { return 0; }
__device__ auto baz() -> decltype(foo<n()>()) {} // which n() does it call?
Presumably host, but:
__device__ auto baz() -> decltype(bar()) {} // does baz return void or int?
Presumably...the device one, int?
Now mix in templates and sizeof and...yeah. Rife for opportunities. :)
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56411/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56411
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
