NewSigma wrote: > Thanks Artem. I think the approach is sound and generally safe to land. Pure > host code under -x cuda compiles again, while host-device callers keep the > eager resolution they need, and I don't see regressions in the cases I'd > worry about. > > The main gap is test coverage. The current test only hits method templates > with no host/device attributes. Before landing, I'd like a minimal positive > case, coverage for the free-function and conversion-operator paths the patch > also touches, and a host-device case that fails if the carve-out is removed.
Thanks. I’ve managed to reduce the test to a smaller one. The free-function and conversion-operator paths are covered (both positive and negative cases), and the host-device case is included. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/200662 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
