[PATCH] D16928: [OpenCL] Apply missing restrictions for Blocks in OpenCL v2.0

[Anastasia Stulova via cfe-commits]

Anastasia updated this revision to Diff 48219.
Anastasia added a comment.

Drafted code for printf handling.

Made me think about:

1. How much signature check should we do i.e. should we check the pointer AS itself (generic for CL2.0, any other otherwise) or qualifiers being used for the first parameter (const, volatile ...)?
2. Would it be nicer to just add printf as a Clang OpenCL builitin to prevent it being declared in various ways and avoid writing custom signature check as in this change?


http://reviews.llvm.org/D16928

Files:
  include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
  lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
  lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
  test/CodeGen/blocks-opencl.cl
  test/SemaOpenCL/event_t.cl
  test/SemaOpenCL/invalid-blocks-cl20.cl
  test/SemaOpenCL/invalid-func.cl
  test/SemaOpenCL/invalid-kernel-parameters.cl
  test/SemaOpenCL/sampler_t.cl

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: D16928.48219.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 12733 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20160217/3f18882c/attachment.bin>