erichkeane added a comment. In D98895#3119104 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98895#3119104>, @asavonic wrote:
> In D98895#3119064 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98895#3119064>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> In D98895#3119027 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98895#3119027>, @asavonic wrote: >> >>> In D98895#3118821 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98895#3118821>, @eandrews >>> wrote: >>> >>>> This patch causes a regression. >>>> >>>> To reproduce - `clang -cc1 -fsycl-is-device -triple spir64 test.cpp` >>>> >>>> test.cpp:x:3: error: 'bar<__float128>' requires 128 bit size >>>> '__float128' type support, but target 'spir64' does not support it >>>> T bar() { return T(); }; >>>> ^ >>>> >>>> I looked at it briefly, and I believe the issue is call to >>>> `checkTypeSupport()` in `ActOnFinishFunctionBody()`. I tried deleting the >>>> call but it breaks tests (E.g. L26 in x86_64-no-x87.cpp). @asavonic Please >>>> take a look. I will be reverting the patch if this cannot be fixed soon. >>> >>> The diagnostic seems to be correct - this instance of `bar` returns an >>> unsupported type. Why do you think it should not be diagnosed? >> >> I believe the problem is that there are now _3_ different diagnostics for >> the same thing, the one on 'bar', plus 2 more here: >> >> `auto malAutoTemp5 = bar<__float128>();` >> >> I think i would expect 1 error on 'bar', 1 error on the deduced 'auto', but >> the 3rd is superfluous. > > I will check if there is a way to filter it out. However, I don't think that > it is a good reason to revert the patch. This a pretty significant regression in our downstream, which is typically more than enough to get a revert. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D98895/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D98895 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
