rjmccall accepted this revision. rjmccall added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D56411#1410598 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56411#1410598>, @yaxunl wrote: > In D56411#1410153 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56411#1410153>, @rjmccall wrote: > > > In D56411#1406212 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56411#1406212>, @yaxunl wrote: > > > > > I would like to fix the validation issue only and leave the overload > > > resolution issue for future. > > > > > > As I understand it, the "validation issue" is just that you'd like a > > diagnostic to be emitted when resolving the template argument in order to > > force SFINAE to pick a different template. I think that's actually just > > the overload-resolution issue. > > > Currently there are two host-ness related issues about function type template > arguments: > > 1. when there are two or more candidates for the template argument, clang > goes through host-ness based overloading resolution, which does not work > properly > 2. when there is only one candidate for the template argument, clang does not > go through overloading resolution, therefore the first issue does not show > up. However, clang still checks host-ness of template argument. As discussed > before, clang should not check host-ness in non-evaluation or > constant-evaluation context. Instead, clang should check host-ness in > template instantiation. > > I refer the first issue as host-ness overloading resolution issue and the > second issue as host-ness validation issue. They are related but separate. > > The first issue only happens when host-ness based overloading resolution is > used. For applications which can be compiled with nvcc, this cannot happen, > therefore it is less common and less urgent. > > The second issue can happen to applications which can be compiled with > nvcc, therefore is more imminent. > > Fixing the second issue is relatively straightforward. It does not need to > introduce new AST types for host-ness. Also it is orthogonal to fixing the > first issue. Okay, I understand now. LGTM. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56411/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56411 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
