Anastasia added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#751921, @echuraev wrote:
> So, I think that we have to do some decision about this patch. @Anastasia,
> What do you think about it? Please see my comment above. What should we do
> with this patch?
I am still not convinced adding t
echuraev added a comment.
So, I think that we have to do some decision about this patch. @Anastasia, What
do you think about it? Please see my commentary above. What should we do with
this patch?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334
___
cfe-commits mai
echuraev added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#700521, @Anastasia wrote:
> I don't actually. But remembering the follow up discussion:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20161205/178846.html
> and since we have to deviate from the standard C/C++ implementati
Anastasia added a comment.
I don't actually. But remembering the follow up discussion:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20161205/178846.html
and since we have to deviate from the standard C/C++ implementation anyways I
am wondering whether modifying overloading resolution i
echuraev added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#614826, @Anastasia wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#614389, @bader wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#613504, @Anastasia wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#612858, @bader wrote:
> > >
> > > > In
;
reviews+d27334+public+f2c5a66032c4c...@reviews.llvm.org
Cc: egor.chur...@gmail.com; yaxun@amd.com; cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org; nd
Subject: RE: [PATCH] D27334: [OpenCL] Ambiguous function call.
Actually OpenCL specification has the following text in “Built-in Functions”
chapter (OpenCL C 2.0
Anastasia added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#614389, @bader wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#613504, @Anastasia wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#612858, @bader wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#611703, @Anastasia wrote:
> > >
> > > > Th
@lists.llvm.org; nd
Subject: RE: [PATCH] D27334: [OpenCL] Ambiguous function call.
> Perhaps that is the problem (that there are two modes that do different
> things)? Could we make the double overload be present but unselectable to
> diagnose this problem in that mode too?
If we could re
On 5 Dec 2016 9:42 am, "Anastasia Stulova via Phabricator via cfe-commits"
mailto:cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
Anastasia added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#612858, @bader wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#611703, @Anastasia wrote:
>
> > This change seems to modi
bader added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#613504, @Anastasia wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#612858, @bader wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#611703, @Anastasia wrote:
> >
> > > This change seems to modify normal C behavior again. Is there any strong
> >
com;
Anastasia Stulova; cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] D27334: [OpenCL] Ambiguous function call.
On 5 Dec 2016 9:42 am, "Anastasia Stulova via Phabricator via cfe-commits"
mailto:cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
Anastasia added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.
On 5 Dec 2016 9:42 am, "Anastasia Stulova via Phabricator via cfe-commits" <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
Anastasia added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#612858, @bader wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#611703, @Anastasia wrote:
>
> > This change seems to modify nor
Anastasia added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#612858, @bader wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#611703, @Anastasia wrote:
>
> > This change seems to modify normal C behavior again. Is there any strong
> > motivation for doing this and if yes could it be done generically
bader added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334#611703, @Anastasia wrote:
> This change seems to modify normal C behavior again. Is there any strong
> motivation for doing this and if yes could it be done generically with C?
Motivation:
// Non-portable OpenCL 1.2 code
__kernel
Anastasia added a comment.
This change seems to modify normal C behavior again. Is there any strong
motivation for doing this and if yes could it be done generically with C?
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:2479
+// integer values.
+if (FDecl->hasAttr()) {
echuraev created this revision.
echuraev added a reviewer: Anastasia.
echuraev added subscribers: bader, cfe-commits, yaxunl.
Added warning about potential ambiguity error with built-in overloading.
Patch by Alexey Bader
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27334
Files:
include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSe
16 matches
Mail list logo
