Anastasia accepted this revision.
Anastasia added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM! Thanks!
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/OpenCLBuiltins.td:933
+ // The OpenCL 3.0 specification defines these with a "gentype" argument
indicating any builtin
+ // type or user-defined type, which cannot be represented currently. Hence
we slightly diverge
+ // by providing only the following overloads with a void pointer.
----------------
I would suggest changing this slightly to:
`which cannot be represented currently` -> `which cannot be represented in C
based languages`
otherwise, it feels like there would be a way to represent it later. I just
want to make sure it is clear that this is not a limitation of Tablegen or
anything else in the implementation but rather conceptual issue.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/OpenCLBuiltins.td:1103
}
foreach TypePair = [[AtomicInt, Int, Int], [AtomicUInt, UInt, UInt],
[AtomicLong, Long, Long], [AtomicULong, ULong, ULong],
----------------
svenvh wrote:
> Anastasia wrote:
> > I think this should be renamed now, but we can do as a separate change.
> >
> > I would suggest using something like `OverloadTypes` instead...
> Agreed that renaming belongs to a separate patch, we can probably bikeshed
> over the actual name. `TypeTuple` would already be better than `TypePair` for
> this case. I find `OverloadTypes` a bit ambiguous (I guess with "Overload"
> you intend to refer to a particular instance of the overloaded function, but
> not sure if it's common to use "overload" as a noun).
> `ReturnTypeAndArgumentTypes` or `OverloadedFunctionTypes` seem more accurate
> but a bit unwieldy...
Yes, we can use more domain-specific names I would prefer those to `TypeTuple`.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D96860/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D96860
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
