Anastasia added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl:32
+ work_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit
declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{did you mean 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'?}}
+ // expected-note@-2{{'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' declared here}}
----------------
Anastasia wrote:
> echuraev wrote:
> > Anastasia wrote:
> > > Why do we get this note now? I believe work_group_reserve_read_pipe
> > > shouldn't be available either?
> > May be I don't understand something but I think that it is the right
> > diagnostic message. We called work_group_reserve_read_pipe in line 29. So
> > for this case we will get the following message:
> > //clang-builtin-version.cl: 31 error: implicit declaration of function
> > 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL
> > clang-builtin-version.cl: 31 note: did you mean
> > 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'?
> > clang-builtin-version.cl: 29 note: 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' declared
> > here//
> But there is an error now given for the call to
> 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'. Why is it still added to the declarations? I
> think we should prevent this.
Also do you know why we didn't have these notes before? I don't see anything
related in your change.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
