tra added a comment.
LGTM. You may want to wait a bit for Justin's feedback, in case he has some
concerns.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCUDA/function-overload.cu:406
+
+// Two irrelevant classes with `operator-` defined. One of them is device only.
+struct C1 { int m; };
----------------
I'd remove `irrelevant`.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCUDA/function-overload.cu:407-411
+struct C1 { int m; };
+struct C2 { int *m; };
+__device__
+int operator-(const C1 &x, const C1 &y) { return x.m - y.m; }
+int operator-(const C2 &x, const C2 &y) { return x.m - y.m; }
----------------
We don't need definitions for `struct` and `operator-`;
This should do:
```
struct C1;
struct C2;
__device__ int operator-(const C1 &x, const C1 &y);
int operator-(const C2 &x, const C2 &y);
...
int test_constexpr_overload(C2 &x, C2 &y) {
return constexpr_overload(x, y);
}
```
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCUDA/function-overload.cu:414
+template <typename T>
+constexpr int constexpr_overload(const T &x, const T &y) {
+ return x - y;
----------------
Is `constexpr` necessary here? If not, then we would not need -std=c++11 either.
I think you really want `__host__ __device__` here instead. `constexpr` is just
applying the attributes implicitly.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67730/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67730
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
