gtbercea added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50845#1202991, @hfinkel wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50845#1202965, @Hahnfeld wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50845#1202963, @hfinkel wrote: > > > > > As a result, we should really have a separate header that has those > > > actually-available functions. When targeting NVPTX, why don't we have the > > > included math.h be CUDA's math.h? In the end, those are the functions we > > > need to call when we generate code. Right? > > > > > > That's what https://reviews.llvm.org/D47849 deals with. > > > Yes, but it doesn't get CUDA's math.h. Maybe I misunderstand how this works > (and I very well might, because it's not clear that CUDA has a math.h by that > name), but that patch tries to avoid problems with the host's math.h and then > also injects __clang_cuda_device_functions.h into the device compilation. How > does this compare to when you include math.h in Clang's CUDA mode? It seems > to be that we want to somehow map standard includes, where applicable, to > include files in CUDA's include/crt directory (e.g., crt/math_functions.h and > crt/common_functions.h for stdio.h for printf), and nothing else ends up > being available (because it is, in fact, not available). There's no CUDA specific math.h unless you want to regard clang_cuda_device_functions.h as a math header. The patch is using the same approach as CUDA and redirecting the function calls to device specific function calls. The parts of that patch which deal with host header compatibility would more naturally belong in a patch like this one so ultimately they won't be part of that patch. I'm currently working on improving the patch though by eliminating the clang_cuda_device_functions.h injection and elimintating the need to disable the built-ins. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D50845 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
