jhuber6 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp:1995
}
- if (S.Context.getTargetInfo().getTriple().isNVPTX()) {
- S.Diag(AL.getLoc(), diag::err_alias_not_supported_on_nvptx);
----------------
jhuber6 wrote:
> tra wrote:
> > tra wrote:
> > > Allowing or not `noreturn` depends on the CUDA version we're building
> > > with (or rather on the PTX version we need for .noreturn instruction).
> > >
> > > We would still need to issue the diagnostics if we're using CUDA older
> > > than 10.1.
> > >
> > Make it `.alias` and `CUDA older than 10.0`.
> Do we do any similar diagnostics checks on the CUDA version? I thought that
> was more of a clang driver thing and we'd just let the backend handle the
> failure, since we can emit LLVM-IR that can be compiled irrespective of the
> CUDA version used to make it.
I checked and I don't think we pass in any CUDA version information to the
`-cc1` compiler. In this case if the user didn't have sufficient utilities it
would simply fail in the backend or in PTX. We have semi-helpful messages there
and it would be a good indicator to update CUDA. Is this fine given that?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D156014/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D156014
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
