ABataev added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50845#1204216, @Hahnfeld wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50845#1204210, @ABataev wrote: > > > > Right, warning wasn't a good thought. We really want strict checking and > > > would have to error out when we find a function that wasn't implicitly > > > `declare target` on the host. > > > I meant to ask how common that would be? If that's only some known > > > functions we could handle them separately. > > > > Again, it does not matter how common is this situation. We cannot rely on > > the probability here, we need to make the compiler to work correctly in all > > possible situation, no matter how often they can occur. > > > Got that, I agree on the conservative approach: If we find a function to be > called that wasn't checked (because it wasn't implicitly `declare target` on > the host) the compiler can error out. That should be correct in all cases, > shouldn't it? > > There's a trade-off here: > > - How many TUs pass full analysis and how many don't? (today's situation; we > know that some headers don't work) > - How many TUs pass when we only check called functions (and error if we call > non-checked ones) and how many regress compared to today's situation? If the > number of regressions is zero for all practical situations but we can compile > some important cases, that should be a win. I need to think about it. We need to estimate all pros and cons here. It might work. >>>>>> The best solution is to use only device specific header files. Device >>>>>> compilation phase should use system header files for the host at all. >>>>> >>>>> You mean "shouldn't use system header files for the host"? I think that >>>>> may be hard to achieve, especially if we want to Sema check all of the >>>>> source code during device compilation. >>>> >>>> Yes, I mean should not. Yes, this is hard to achieve but that's the only >>>> complete and correct solution. Everything else looks like a non-stable >>>> hack. >>> >>> How do you propose to handle inline assembly in non-system header files? >> >> Just like as usual - if the assembler is supported by the device - it is ok, >> otherwise - error message. > > Even if the function is never called? That would mean you can't include any > `Eigen` header... Yes, that's the problem. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D50845 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
