[clang] [lld] [llvm] [AMDGPU] Rename COV module flag to amdhsa_code_object_version (PR #79905)
https://github.com/epilk closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79905 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[llvm] [lld] [clang] [AMDGPU] Rename COV module flag to amdhsa_code_object_version (PR #79905)
@@ -25,4 +25,4 @@ entry: } !llvm.module.flags = !{!0} -!0 = !{i32 1, !"amdgpu_code_object_version", i32 500} +!0 = !{i32 1, !"amdhsa_code_object_version", i32 500} epilk wrote: Sure, I'll make a PR for that too after this lands. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79905 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [llvm] [lld] [AMDGPU] Rename COV module flag to amdhsa_code_object_version (PR #79905)
epilk wrote: @tstellar there was some uncertainty about whether to leave the spelling as-is since mesa used to following HSA code object versions (but doesn't anymore). Would you have any objections to this change? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79905 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] Enable unguarded availability diagnostic on instantiated template functions (PR #91699)
@@ -177,16 +177,19 @@ void justAtAvailable(void) { #ifdef OBJCPP -int f(char) AVAILABLE_10_12; +int f(char) AVAILABLE_10_12; // #f_char_def int f(int); template int use_f() { - // FIXME: We should warn here! - return f(T()); epilk wrote: Could you check that we don't emit a warning if there is an availability attribute on the enclosing function or if the use is guarded by an `if (@available(...))` check? IIRC that that was what I was concerned about when I wrote this. @jansvoboda11 : someone at Apple should probably review this. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91699 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits