[PATCH] D15858: Warn undeclared identifiers in CUDA kernel calls
Richard Smith via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jan 6 11:21:34 PST 2016
rsmith added a subscriber: rsmith.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/ExprCXX.h:175
@@ +174,3 @@
+ void setConfig(CallExpr *E) {
+ setPreArg(CONFIG, E);
+ setInstantiationDependent(isInstantiationDependent() ||
----------------
Can you assert that the argument is only set once here? (If we set it to something instantiation-dependent and then to something that isn't instantiation-dependent, we'd compute the wrong instantiation-dependence flag.) This function should only be called by the normal constructor and by people who called the `EmptyShell` constructor.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCUDA/kernel-call.cu:27
@@ -26,1 +26,3 @@
+
+ g1<<<undeclared, 1>>>(42); // expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier 'undeclared'}}
}
----------------
jhen wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up. While trying to find tests that dealt with each dependence individually, I came to realize that value and type dependence should not be set for the CUDAKernelCallExpr node because it's value is always void. So, I removed the propagation of those two dependencies.
>
> Then, while looking for a test that could handle the parameter pack information, I realized that it was opening up a whole new can of worms and that the triple-angle-bracket syntax does not currently support variadic templates. I decided that parameter packs should be handled as a separate bug, so I removed them from this patch.
>
> The instantiation dependence propagation is still valid, though, because it just represents whether a template parameter is present anywhere in the expression, so I left it in. Correctly tracking instantiation dependence in enough to fix the bug this patch was meant to fix, so I think it is the only change that should be made in this patch.
What happens if an unexpanded pack is used within the kernel arguments of a CUDA kernel call? Do we already reject that? Are there tests for that somewhere?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15858
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list