yaxunl added a comment. In D77954#1976316 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77954#1976316>, @yaxunl wrote:
> In D77954#1976294 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77954#1976294>, @rjmccall wrote: > > > If `nvcc` ignores host/device-ness when selecting overloads, that's > > probably the specified behavior, right? I agree that it would be better to > > not ignore it, but Clang shouldn't just make up better rules for languages > > with external specifications. > > > cuda-clang does not always follow nvcc's behavior. For example, cuda-clang > only allows incomplete array type for extern shared variables, whereas nvcc > allows other types. If cuda-clang is supposed to follow nvcc's behavior in > every aspects, we should approve https://reviews.llvm.org/D73979 , but it is > not the case. > > Therefore, I think we should discuss whether this is really a bug, and > whether the fix can cause any unwanted side effect. BTW cuda-clang is already quite different than nvcc regarding host/device-based overloading resolution. For example, the following code is valid in cuda-clang before my change but invalid in nvcc https://cuda.godbolt.org/z/qwpKZe . So if we want to follow nvcc's resolution rule we need a total revamp of device/host related resolution in cuda-clang. __host__ int foo(int x) { return 1; } template<class T> __device__ int foo(T x) { return 2; } __device__ int bar() { return foo(1); } __global__ void test(int *a) { *a = bar(); } CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77954/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77954 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
