Fznamznon added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/Sema.cpp:1798
+ FunctionDecl *FD =
+ isa<FunctionDecl>(C) ? cast<FunctionDecl>(C) : dyn_cast<FunctionDecl>(D);
auto CheckType = [&](QualType Ty) {
----------------
So, we assume that lexical context is a function and if it is not, we assume
that the value declaration being checked is a function. Can we actually break
this assumption?
For example, will something like this work correctly:
```
struct S {
__float128 A = 1;
int bar = 2 * A;
};
#pragma omp declare target
S s;
#pragma omp end declare target
```
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/Sema.cpp:1835
}
+ if (const auto *FPTy = dyn_cast<FunctionNoProtoType>(Ty))
+ CheckType(FPTy->getReturnType());
----------------
I was a bit confused by `FPTy` variable name and already started writing a
comment that we already checked a case `FunctionProtoType` case, then I
realized that it is a check for Function*No*Prototype :) . Can we change FPTy
to something closer to `FunctionNoProtoType` ?
================
Comment at: clang/test/OpenMP/nvptx_unsupported_type_messages.cpp:42
#ifndef _ARCH_PPC
-// expected-note@+1 {{'boo' defined here}}
+// expected-error@+2 {{'boo' requires 128 bit size '__float128' type support,
but device 'nvptx64-unknown-unknown' does not support it}}
+// expected-note@+1 2{{'boo' defined here}}
----------------
So, `boo` is diagnosed two times, at the point where it actually used and
where it is defined, it looks a bit like a duplication isn't it? I think it
makes sense to diagnose only usage point with note pointing to the definition.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95912/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95912
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
