tra added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCUDA.cpp:429-430
@@ +428,4 @@
+ CXXConstructorDecl *CD) {
+ if (!CD->isDefined() && CD->isTemplateInstantiation())
+ InstantiateFunctionDefinition(VarLoc, CD->getFirstDecl());
+
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> The function might still not be defined after this (if the template is not
> defined); you should presumably return `false` here in that case.
I don't think it's needed. If it's still not definied, it will be caught by
hasTrivialBody() check below.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:10191-10198
@@ +10190,10 @@
+ bool AllowedInit = false;
+ if (const CXXConstructExpr *CE = dyn_cast<CXXConstructExpr>(Init))
+ AllowedInit =
+ isEmptyCudaConstructor(VD->getLocation(), CE->getConstructor());
+ else if ((VD->hasAttr<CUDADeviceAttr>() ||
+ VD->hasAttr<CUDAConstantAttr>()) &&
+ VD->getInit()->isConstantInitializer(
+ Context, VD->getType()->isReferenceType()))
+ AllowedInit = true;
+
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> What should happen if the init is a constant initializer that is a
> `CXXConstructExpr`, but it uses a constructor that is not empty from CUDA's
> perspective? Such as:
>
> struct X { constexpr X() { int n = 0; } };
> __device__ X x;
>
> I would assume this should be valid, but I think you'll reject it. Maybe
> change `else if (` to `if (!AllowedInit &&`?
NVCC produces an error (probably because it does not support c++14):
zz.cu(1): error: statement may not appear in a constexpr constructor
clang w/ this patch indeed considers it to be a non-empty initializer and
produces an error.
I agree that allowing constant initializer is the right thing to do. Your
example requires c++14, so there's no direct comparison with nvcc, but I think
allowing it is indeed the right thing to do here.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15305
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
