jlebar added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20985#448836, @tra wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20985#448822, @jlebar wrote: > > > How is this different from test/SemaCUDA/launch_bounds.cu:27-28? It does > > > > const int constint = 512; > > __launch_bounds__(constint) void TestConstInt(void); > > > > > > which looks verbatim the same as this testcase. > > > Existing test is a declaration of the function which did not trigger the > crash. > Second issue is that -verify interferes with reproduction case -- the crash > does not happen if any //expect-* are seen before it. > Plus, the outcome of the failing test is a crash which would prevent reports > of other failures. > Separate test file makes the crash isolated and reliably reproducible. Got it, thanks. Should we have a test that passes a char or a short and ensures that we do the correct implicit conversion there? ================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp:4045 @@ -4043,4 +4044,3 @@ // May output an error. -static bool checkLaunchBoundsArgument(Sema &S, Expr *E, - const CUDALaunchBoundsAttr &Attr, - const unsigned Idx) { +static Expr *checkLaunchBoundsArgument(Sema &S, Expr *E, + const CUDALaunchBoundsAttr &Attr, ---------------- Should we update this name and comment? http://reviews.llvm.org/D20985 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
