hvdijk added a comment. > That's a good question. I haven't looked into this issue deep enough, but I > think using -fexceptions requires using delayed diagnostics to avoid false > diagnostics during host code analysis.
I am assuming you mean `-fno-exceptions` (or, in `clang -cc1`, the absence of `-fexceptions`)? This is a good point. Delayed diagnostics would probably be good in general: we currently already emit warnings for host code when compiling for device, but as long as the generated warnings are identical for the host code as when compiling for host, it is easy enough to ignore; if the device compilation were to result in additional warnings for host code, and those warnings are incorrect, that would be a rather poor user experience. That sounds like a good additional reason to do it the way I had done here, the way the existing code comment had indicated. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147097/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147097 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
