Anastasia marked an inline comment as done.
Anastasia added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/TreeTransform.h:5363
+ if (ResultType.getAddressSpace() != LangAS::Default &&
+ (ResultType.getAddressSpace() != LangAS::opencl_private)) {
SemaRef.Diag(TL.getReturnLoc().getBeginLoc(),
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> Anastasia wrote:
> > I am trying to be a bit more helpful here although I am not sure if we
> > should instead require explicit template parameter and fail the template
> > deduction instead.
> >
> > Basically, do we want the following code to always require specifying
> > template argument explicitly:
> >
> >
> > ```
> > template <class T>
> > T xxx(T *in) {
> > T *i = in;
> > return *i;
> > }
> >
> > __kernel void test() {
> > int foo[10];
> > xxx<int>(&foo[0]); // if we deduce type from foo, it ends up being
> > qualified by __private that we currently diagnose. However private is
> > default (implicit) address space for return type so technically there is no
> > danger in just allowing xxx(&foo[0])
> > }
> > ```
> Implicitly ignoring all address-space qualifiers on the return type seems
> like the right thing to do; I don't think it needs to be limited to
> `__private`. That's probably also the right thing to do for locals, but I'm
> less certain about it.
Just to clarify by "Implicitly ignoring" you mean ignoring if the templ
parameters were deduced?
Although I am a bit concerned about allowing other than `__private` address
spaces in return types as we reject them in return types of functions
generally. Would it not be somehow inconsistent?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62584/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62584
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
