Anastasia added a comment. In D69938#1742354 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69938#1742354>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D69938#1742026 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69938#1742026>, @Anastasia wrote: > > > In D69938#1741713 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69938#1741713>, @rjmccall > > wrote: > > > > > In D69938#1741080 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69938#1741080>, @Anastasia > > > wrote: > > > > > > > In D69938#1737196 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69938#1737196>, @rjmccall > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It does make logical sense to be able to qualify the call operator of > > > > > a lambda. The lambda always starts as a temporary, so presumably we > > > > > want the default address space qualifier on lambdas to be compatible > > > > > with the address space of temporaries. However, that's probably also > > > > > true of the default address qualifier on methods in general or you > > > > > wouldn't be able to call them on temporaries and locals. Thus, we > > > > > should be able to use the same default in both cases, which seems to > > > > > be what you've implemented. > > > > > > > > > > It even makes sense to be able to qualify a lambda with an address > > > > > space that's not compatible with the address space of temporaries; > > > > > that just means that the lambda has to be copied elsewhere before it > > > > > can be invoked. > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to clarify... Do you mean we should be able to compile this > > > > example: > > > > > > > > [&] __global { > > > > i++; > > > > } (); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or should this result in a diagnostic about an addr space mismatch? > > > > > > > > > It should result in a diagnostic on the call. But if you assigned that > > > lambda into global memory (somehow) it should work. > > > > > > Ok, makes sense so something like this should compile fine: > > > > __global auto glob = [&] __global { ... }; > > > Right, a call to `glob()` should work in this case. I don't know if > `__global` would parse here without `()`, though; in the grammar, it looks > like attributes and so on have to follow an explicit parameter clause. > > >>> 3. Diagnose address space mismatch between variable decl and lambda expr > >>> qualifier Example: __private auto llambda = [&]() __local {i++;}; // > >>> error no legal conversion b/w __private and __local > >>> > >>> I think 1 is covered by this patch. I would like to implement 2 as a > >>> separate patch though to be able to commit fix for 1 earlier and unblock > >>> some developers waiting for the fix. I think 3 already works and I will > >>> just update the diagnostic in a separate patch too. > >> > >> I agree that 3 should just fall out. And yeah, implementing 2 as a > >> separate patch should be fine. Please make sure 3 is adequately tested in > >> this patch. > > > > Ok, since we can't qualify lambda expr with addr spaces yet there is not > > much I can test at this point. `__constant` lambda variable seems to be the > > only case with a diagnostic for OpenCL. > > You can certainly copy a lambda type into a different address space, or > construct a pointer to a qualified lambda type, e.g. `(*(__constant > decltype(somelambda) *) nullptr)()`. Perhaps I am not thinking of the right use cases, but I am struggling to understand what would be the difference to variables of other type here. I have added `(*(__constant decltype(somelambda) *) nullptr)()` as a test case however. It is rejected due to multiple addr spaces. Also generally do you think there is any situation in which having lambda object and lambda call operator in different addr spaces would be useful? > John. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69938/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69938 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
