tra added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/__clang_cuda_cmath.h:125-133
@@ -122,8 +124,11 @@
__DEVICE__ float modf(float __x, float *__iptr) { return ::modff(__x, __iptr);
}
-__DEVICE__ float nexttoward(float __from, float __to) {
+__DEVICE__ float nexttoward(float __from, double __to) {
return __builtin_nexttowardf(__from, __to);
}
__DEVICE__ double nexttoward(double __from, double __to) {
return __builtin_nexttoward(__from, __to);
}
+__DEVICE__ float nexttowardf(float __from, double __to) {
+ return __builtin_nexttowardf(__from, __to);
+}
__DEVICE__ float pow(float __base, float __exp) {
----------------
You've got two identical `nexttoward(float, double)` now.
Perhaps first one was supposed to remain `nexttoward(float, float)` ?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/__clang_cuda_cmath.h:184-197
@@ +183,16 @@
+
+// Defines an overload of __fn that accepts one two arithmetic arguments, calls
+// __fn((double)x, (double)y), and returns a double.
+//
+// Note this is different from OVERLOAD_1, which generates an overload that
+// accepts only *integral* arguments.
+#define __CUDA_CLANG_FN_INTEGER_OVERLOAD_2(__retty, __fn)
\
+ template <typename __T1, typename __T2>
\
+ __DEVICE__ typename __clang_cuda_enable_if<
\
+ std::numeric_limits<__T1>::is_specialized &&
\
+ std::numeric_limits<__T2>::is_specialized,
\
+ __retty>::type
\
+ __fn(__T1 __x, __T2 __y) {
\
+ return __fn((double)__x, (double)__y);
\
+ }
+
----------------
`is_specialized` will be true for `long double` args and we'll instantiate the
function. Can we/should we produce an error instead?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23627
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
