jlebar added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Driver/CC1Options.td:702-703
@@ -701,2 +701,4 @@
HelpText<"Allow variadic functions in CUDA device code.">;
+def fcuda_relaxed_constexpr : Flag<["-"], "fcuda-relaxed-constexpr">,
+ HelpText<"Treat constexpr functions as __host__ __device__.">;
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Is there a better name we can use for this? I don't think this is "relaxed"
> in any obvious sense. `-fcuda-host-device-constexpr` or
> `-fcuda-constexpr-on-device` might be clearer?
"relaxed constexpr" is nvidia's term -- do you think it might be helpful to use
the same terminology? I understand there's some prior art here, with respect
to clang accepting gcc's flags, although the situation here is of course
different.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:3597
@@ -3596,2 +3596,3 @@
CmdArgs.push_back("-fcuda-disable-target-call-checks");
+ CmdArgs.push_back("-fcuda-relaxed-constexpr");
}
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> For flags that are enabled by default, we usually have the -cc1 flag be a
> `-fno-*` flag. This allows people to use (for instance) `clang blah.cu
> -Xclang -fno-cuda-relaxed-constexpr` if necessary.
Yeah, Artem and I had a discussion about this yesterday. As you can see, there
are two other flags above which are turned on by default -- these also lack
-fno variants.
I think it would be good to be consistent here. I'm tempted to add another
patch below this one which makes the other two -fno, then we can make this one
-fno as well. It seems that convention is to just get rid of the existing
non-fno flags, rather than leave both positive and negative versions.
Does that sound OK to you?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18380
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
