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