olestrohm added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp:9870
+ if (S.getLangOpts().OpenCL) {
+ if (const auto *CD1 =
dyn_cast_or_null<CXXConstructorDecl>(Cand1.Function)) {
----------------
Anastasia wrote:
> olestrohm wrote:
> > Anastasia wrote:
> > > olestrohm wrote:
> > > > Anastasia wrote:
> > > > > I think we should remove the OpenCL check since it is not OpenCL
> > > > > specific rule and you are using common helpers indeed!
> > > > >
> > > > > I also wonder if this should be applied to all member functions not
> > > > > only ctors since `isBetterOverloadCandidate` should be used for
> > > > > everything?
> > > > >
> > > > > However it seems that other members are already handled somehow
> > > > > https://godbolt.org/z/MrWKPKed7. Do you know where this handling
> > > > > comes from?
> > > > It's handled in SemaOverload.cpp:10000 in
> > > > `OverloadCandidateSet::BestViableFunction` which checks if the given
> > > > function is viable or not. For member functions the address space
> > > > they're defined in and the address space of the variable have to match.
> > > > Therefore only one of them is valid at a time and they never get
> > > > checked against each other in `isBetterOverloadCandidate`.
> > > I am quite sure that for the example above both `__private` and
> > > `__generic `overloads are viable. In fact, if you remove the `__private`
> > > overload the `__generic` one gets picked.
> > >
> > > So I think the logic should be checking for compatibility rather than the
> > > exact match i.e. using `isAddressSpaceSupersetOf` although it might not
> > > be calling that helper directly but through the other Qualifier logic.
> > Ah, I think I checked it wrong last time. Going through it again it's
> > actually determined by `QualType::isMoreQualifiedThan` in the end. I'll
> > look into it more.
> So did you happen to find where the address space ranking for the members is
> currently happening for this test case https://godbolt.org/z/MrWKPKed7?
>
> I just want to make sure we don't add any redundant checks... so if let's say
> we already have a similar logic elsewhere it would be better if we attempt to
> generalize it or move it entirely here if it's doable. In general, we should
> try to use general qualifier logic if it works instead of specializing for
> address spaces.
It's handled on line 9661 with a call to CompareImplicitConversionSequences,
which then goes through a couple of checks and discovers that the return type
of one of the functions is more specialized than the other. However this uses
the Conversions part of the candidates, which the constructors don't have.
I did attempt to generalize this further than address spaces, but that caused
some tests to fail, so I think it makes sense to only check address spaces here.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D102850/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D102850
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
