svenvh added a comment.
In D106785#2904619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106785#2904619>, @Anastasia wrote:
> I would like @svenvh to take a look from the clang header's design point.
Looks okay to me.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:1980
+ __private T var2; // error - conflicting address space qualifiers
+ __private __remove_address_space<T> var3; // compiled - var3 is __private
int
+ }
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenOpenCLCXX/remove-address-space.clcpp:14
+void test_remove_address_space() {
+ static_assert(is_same<__remove_address_space<__generic int>::type,
int>::value,
+ "__generic address space not removed by
__remove_address_space");
----------------
It's maybe worth testing `is_same` with `static_assert(!is_same<float,
int>::value);` too, or at least testing some negative case.
A case without any address space qualifiers is currently missing (i.e., for the
first trait).
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106785/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106785
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
