Anastasia added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Misc/opencl-c-3.0.incorrect_options.cl:21
+
// CHECK-FP64: error: options cl_khr_fp64 and __opencl_c_fp64 are set to
different values
----------------
azabaznov wrote:
> Anastasia wrote:
> > Anastasia wrote:
> > > I can't remember if we have discussed this already, but could we use
> > > `-verify` for these errors?
> > We should be able to remove `FileCheck` and replace `CHECK` directives with
> > something like:
> > `//expected-error@*{{options cl_khr_fp64 and __opencl_c_fp64 are set to
> > different values}}`
> I don't think we can test it like this because there is different output for
> each invalid combination, so we need to check them with label.
We normally use macros to guard the expected errors but however, this is a
better fit for a refactoring patch... so I am ok if it's done separately...
However, don't you need to add
```
//expected-no-diagnostics
```
directive?
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaOpenCL/storageclass.cl:2
// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -verify -pedantic -fsyntax-only -cl-std=CL1.2
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -verify -pedantic -fsyntax-only -cl-std=CL3.0
-cl-ext=-__opencl_c_program_scope_global_variables,-__opencl_c_generic_address_space,-__opencl_c_pipes
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -verify -pedantic -fsyntax-only -cl-std=CL3.0
-cl-ext=+__opencl_c_program_scope_global_variables,-__opencl_c_generic_address_space,-__opencl_c_pipes
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -verify -pedantic -fsyntax-only -cl-std=CL3.0
-cl-ext=-__opencl_c_program_scope_global_variables,+__opencl_c_generic_address_space
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -verify -pedantic -fsyntax-only -cl-std=CL3.0
-cl-ext=-__opencl_c_program_scope_global_variables,-__opencl_c_generic_address_space,-__opencl_c_pipes,-__opencl_c_device_enqueue
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -verify -pedantic -fsyntax-only -cl-std=CL3.0
-cl-ext=+__opencl_c_program_scope_global_variables,-__opencl_c_generic_address_space,-__opencl_c_pipes,-__opencl_c_device_enqueue
----------------
azabaznov wrote:
> Anastasia wrote:
> > Anastasia wrote:
> > > These lines are getting a bit longer. Do we actually need to set
> > > `-__opencl_c_device_enqueue` for this test? Same for some other tests...
> > ping
> Yeah, we need that here because we are turning off generic AS and PSV in this
> test. Note that `__opencl_c_device_enqueue` is turned off with `-cl-ext=-all`.
since this test doesn't check anything for `__opencl_c_device_enqueue` why do
we need to switch this off explicitly?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D115640/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D115640
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
