[PATCH] D60193: [OpenCL] Added addrspace_cast operator

[Anastasia Stulova via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

Anastasia marked 4 inline comments as done.
Anastasia added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCast.cpp:279
+  case tok::kw_addrspace_cast:
+    if (!TypeDependent) {
+      Op.CheckAddrspaceCast();
----------------
mantognini wrote:
> Still learning here, so could you/someone tell me if I understood things correctly? :)
> 
> The type is "dependent" when templates are involved, right? And, here, when we don't know all the concrete types we defer the checking to a later compiler phase? And that later compiler phase would be implemented by "TreeTransform", right?
Precisely!


================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCast.cpp:285
+    return Op.complete(CXXAddrspaceCastExpr::Create(Context, Op.ResultType,
+                                    Op.ValueKind, Op.SrcExpr.get(),
+                                                  DestTInfo,
----------------
mantognini wrote:
> The formatting looks a bit funny here.
I agree, I just matched the style of the old code to keep it coherent. Although perhaps I should rather adhere to the current style?


================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCast.cpp:2319
                                          unsigned &msg) {
   if (!Self.getLangOpts().OpenCL)
     // FIXME: As compiler doesn't have any information about overlapping addr
----------------
mantognini wrote:
> Just to make sure I understand things correctly: `OpenCL` is true when dealing with C or C++ mode for OpenCL, right?
Precisely! 


================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCast.cpp:2338
   auto DestPointeeType = DestPtrType->getPointeeType();
   if (SrcPointeeType.getAddressSpace() == DestPointeeType.getAddressSpace())
     return TC_NotApplicable;
----------------
mantognini wrote:
> Wouldn't this limit usage of the cast unnecessarily? I'm thinking this could be transformed to a NOP, which could be beneficial to make (template) code simpler to write.
I am not sure what you mean. I have added the test for templates and it caught a bug in lib/AST/Expr.cpp with assert condition.

However, now that I think about this more, I believe we should allow compiling this?

```
__private int* i;
addrspace_cast<private int*>(i);
```

Currently it outputs an error.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D60193/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D60193