jvesely added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24113#535255, @george.burgess.iv wrote:
> Thanks for the heads-up!
>
> I'm assuming that below is an example of code that this patch broke?
>
> void foo(int *a, int) __attribute__((overloadable));
> void foo(unsigned int *a, unsigned int) __attribute__((overloadable));
>
> void callFoo() {
> unsigned int i;
> foo(&i, 0u); // fine.
> foo(&i, 0); // now-ambiguous overload.
> }
>
yes, you're correct. (I'm pretty sure I tried this before posting, I must have
done something wrong...) I'll send libclc patch. The specs don't really talk
about overloads so I think the behaviour is OK. Although I think that users
will expect atomic_add(unsigned int *, 5) to work.without error.
thanks
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24113
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
