rjmccall added a comment. In D61458#1488972 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61458#1488972>, @hfinkel wrote:
> In D61458#1488970 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61458#1488970>, @jlebar wrote: > > > Here's one for you: > > > > __host__ float bar(); > > __device__ int bar(); > > __host__ __device__ auto foo() -> decltype(bar()) {} > > > > > > What is the return type of `foo`? :) > > > > I don't believe the right answer is, "float when compiling for host, int > > when compiling for device." > > > So, actually, I wonder if that's not the right answer. We generally allow > different overloads to have different return types. Only if they also differ in some other way. C++ does not (generally) have return-type-based overloading. The two functions described would even mangle the same way if CUDA didn't include host/device in the mangling. (Function templates can differ only by return type, but if both return types successfully instantiate for a given set of (possibly inferred) template arguments then the templates can only be distinguished when taking their address, not when calling.) I think I've said before that adding this kind of overloading is not a good idea, but since it's apparently already there, you should consult the specification (or at least existing practice) to figure out what you're supposed to do. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61458/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61458 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
