tra added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp:1995
}
- if (S.Context.getTargetInfo().getTriple().isNVPTX()) {
- S.Diag(AL.getLoc(), diag::err_alias_not_supported_on_nvptx);
----------------
jhuber6 wrote:
> jhuber6 wrote:
> > tra wrote:
> > > tra wrote:
> > > > Allowing or not `noreturn` depends on the CUDA version we're building
> > > > with (or rather on the PTX version we need for .noreturn instruction).
> > > >
> > > > We would still need to issue the diagnostics if we're using CUDA older
> > > > than 10.1.
> > > >
> > > Make it `.alias` and `CUDA older than 10.0`.
> > Do we do any similar diagnostics checks on the CUDA version? I thought that
> > was more of a clang driver thing and we'd just let the backend handle the
> > failure, since we can emit LLVM-IR that can be compiled irrespective of the
> > CUDA version used to make it.
> I checked and I don't think we pass in any CUDA version information to the
> `-cc1` compiler. In this case if the user didn't have sufficient utilities it
> would simply fail in the backend or in PTX. We have semi-helpful messages
> there and it would be a good indicator to update CUDA. Is this fine given
> that?
We do pass it via `-target-sdk-version=...`
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1b74459df8a6d960f7387f0c8379047e42811f58/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp#L4707
And then check with `getSDKVersion`. E.g.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1b74459df8a6d960f7387f0c8379047e42811f58/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCUDANV.cpp#L317
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D156014/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D156014
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
