jhuber6 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp:1995 } - if (S.Context.getTargetInfo().getTriple().isNVPTX()) { - S.Diag(AL.getLoc(), diag::err_alias_not_supported_on_nvptx); ---------------- jhuber6 wrote: > tra wrote: > > tra wrote: > > > Allowing or not `noreturn` depends on the CUDA version we're building > > > with (or rather on the PTX version we need for .noreturn instruction). > > > > > > We would still need to issue the diagnostics if we're using CUDA older > > > than 10.1. > > > > > Make it `.alias` and `CUDA older than 10.0`. > Do we do any similar diagnostics checks on the CUDA version? I thought that > was more of a clang driver thing and we'd just let the backend handle the > failure, since we can emit LLVM-IR that can be compiled irrespective of the > CUDA version used to make it. I checked and I don't think we pass in any CUDA version information to the `-cc1` compiler. In this case if the user didn't have sufficient utilities it would simply fail in the backend or in PTX. We have semi-helpful messages there and it would be a good indicator to update CUDA. Is this fine given that? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156014/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156014 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits