Anastasia added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl:32 + work_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}} + // expected-note@-1{{did you mean 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'?}} + // expected-note@-2{{'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' declared here}} ---------------- Anastasia wrote: > echuraev wrote: > > Anastasia wrote: > > > Why do we get this note now? I believe work_group_reserve_read_pipe > > > shouldn't be available either? > > May be I don't understand something but I think that it is the right > > diagnostic message. We called work_group_reserve_read_pipe in line 29. So > > for this case we will get the following message: > > //clang-builtin-version.cl: 31 error: implicit declaration of function > > 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL > > clang-builtin-version.cl: 31 note: did you mean > > 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'? > > clang-builtin-version.cl: 29 note: 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' declared > > here// > But there is an error now given for the call to > 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'. Why is it still added to the declarations? I > think we should prevent this. Also do you know why we didn't have these notes before? I don't see anything related in your change. https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits