pxli168 added inline comments.

================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:6714
@@ +6713,3 @@
+  if (LangOpts.OpenCLVersion >= 200 && T->isBlockPointerType()) {
+    const BlockPointerType *BlkTy = T->getAs<BlockPointerType>();
+    const FunctionProtoType *FTy =
----------------
Anastasia wrote:
> Yes, but you have to diagnose blocks correctly in all CL versions in which we 
> accept blocks. When you come to this point here you should only care about 
> checking whether blocks have variadic prototype or not. You should assume the 
> parser did the right job to either accept or reject the block declaration 
> earlier and also gave the right diagnostic.
> 
> It will be responsibility of a parser to correctly accept or reject blocks 
> depending on a version. I will prepare a patch for it later on. Please see my 
> related comment on the review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16928 
I will change these, if we can restrict -fblock with -cl-std=CL2.x then there 
will be no problem by only checking LangOpts.OpenCL

================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:6509
@@ +6508,3 @@
+      return QualType();
+  }
+
----------------
Anastasia wrote:
> What is the implication of that? Will we get errors in different order then?
I think we should put operands check after condition check to keep the original 
logic.


http://reviews.llvm.org/D17436



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to