================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCUDA.cpp:54
@@ -53,4 +53,3 @@
return CFT_Host;
- } else if (D->isImplicit()) {
- // Some implicit declarations (like intrinsic functions) are not marked.
- // Set the most lenient target on them for maximal flexibility.
+ } else if (D->isImplicit() && D->getBuiltinID()) {
+ // Intrinsic functions cannot (at present) be marked as __device__ so set
----------------
Builtins are for things like __builtin_popcount(), but your test case is
looking at implicitly defined C++ special members, right? What was happening on
the test case you have previously?
================
Comment at: test/SemaCUDA/implicit-copy.cu:16
@@ +15,2 @@
+ a = b;
+}
----------------
This seems like another interesting test case:
struct Copyable {
__device__ const Copyable& operator=(const Copyable& x) { return *this; }
};
struct Simple {
Copyable b;
};
void foo(Simple &a, Simple &b) {
a = b;
}
Simple's implicit copy ctor should be rejected when the host is the target
because it calls a device-only method from the host, right?
I'm also curious what happens when someone uses FP math builtins like
__builtin_cos that might have a reasonable lowering on a GPU.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D6565
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
