Anastasia added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17438#443422, @pxli168 wrote:
> Yes, I found although the khronos have make a clarify with implicit
> declarations but they sames to be useful with some program link. And I found
> some test case about link could not pass by this reason.
>
Anastasia added a comment.
@pxli168, do you still plan to update this? I think the implicit declarations
would be quite useful to have.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D17438
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
pxli168 added a comment.
Hi Anastasia,
https://cvs.khronos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15603
Now we got clarify from khronos. I will continue on this patch.
BTW, https://cvs.khronos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15599 is also fixed in
the same revision.
Thanks
Xiuli
pxli168 added a comment.
https://cvs.khronos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15603
Bug reported.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D17438
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Anastasia added a comment.
Yes, I think it deserves clarification. Could you submit a bug to Khronos then?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D17438
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
pxli168 added a comment.
It now gives a warning for both C99 and OpenCL.
But for target SPIR it gives an err only because it treat unprototyped function
as varidic function:
/// \brief Checks whether the given calling convention supports variadic
/// calls. Unprototyped calls also use the
Anastasia added a comment.
I agree there seems to be nothing specifically on this topic in OpenCL spec.
However, I wouldn't modify Clang and rely on its default behavior:
1. In C99 gives a warning
2. For some targets set up in a special way (i.e. SPIR) gives an error
Comment
pxli168 added a comment.
It seems this patch is useless.
The spec does not tell about implicit declaration of function, but now clang
with -triple spir will output err if there is implicit declaration of function.
I have read about spir and opencl spec but could not find anything talk about
Anastasia added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:11504
@@ +11503,3 @@
+ else if (getLangOpts().OpenCL)
+// OpenCL function need to be called with prototype, so we don't allow
+// implicit function declarations in OpenCL
Could you add
Anastasia added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:3900
@@ -3899,1 +3899,3 @@
if (!DeclaresAnything) {
+// OpenCL C doesn't support bit-field, so declaration with no declarator
+// has no use.
I am still not convinced about this change?
pxli168 created this revision.
pxli168 added reviewers: pekka.jaaskelainen, Anastasia, yaxunl.
pxli168 added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Add Sema checks for atomics and implicit declaration
This patch is partitioned from http://reviews.llvm.org/D16047
http://reviews.llvm.org/D17438
Files:
11 matches
Mail list logo