tra added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47757#1204621, @ahatanak wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47757#1204561, @tra wrote: > > > It's a regression. There's a decent chance it breaks someone and this > > patch, if committed by itself, will end up being rolled back. > > > Is the regression you are referring to about the static function case? I > don't see a difference between ToT clang and my patch in the diagnostics they > produce when I compile the following code: > > __host__ void f(); > static __host__ __device__ void g() { f(); } > __host__ __device__ void g2() { g(); } > > > Both error out when `-fcuda-is-device` is provided. If I comment out the > definition of g2, it compiles fine. The example above *is* expected to produce the error on device side, bacause g2() is externally visible, uses g(), which in turn uses host-only f(). I'm talking about a case where g() {f()} is present in the source code, but will not be codegen'ed on device side. The code below is expected to compile. Note that g2() is host-only. __host__ void f(); static __host__ __device__ void g() { f(); } __host__ void g2() { g(); } Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D47757 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
