hfinkel added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17103#349254, @jlebar wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17103#349245, @hfinkel wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17103#349182, @jlebar wrote: > > > > > Yeah, I have no idea what's the right thing to do here. We can always > > > pass a null pointer, that's easy. David, Reid, do you know what is the > > > correct behavior? > > > > > > I think we need to diagnose / reject this during semantic analysis (and > > then put a reasonable assert in the backend). > > > Two things. > > a) That doesn't seem to be what we do in regular C++. It will happily let > you pass a Struct in with only a warning. Yes, but it also can be legally lowered and does not crash. > b) At the moment, we don't have the capability to do a proper semantic > analysis of this. The issue is, when doing sema checking of __host__ > __device__ functions, we don't know whether the function will end up being > codegen'ed for device. And the semantics of cuda are that it's OK to do > things that are illegal in device mode from __host__ __device__ functions, so > long as you never codegen those functions for the device. > > We have a plan to address (b) (basically, when doing sema checking, buffer > any errors we would emit if we were to codegen for device; then we can emit > all those errors right before codegen), but it's a much bigger thing. Until > then, we need to do *something* other than crash here, even if we add > additional sema checking for plain __device__ fns. Interesting dilemma. In the mean time, you can call CGM.ErrorUnsupported instead of removing arguments. http://reviews.llvm.org/D17103 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
