[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
Anastasia accepted this revision. Anastasia added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM! Thanks! https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
echuraev updated this revision to Diff 100210.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
Files:
include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
Index: test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
===
--- test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
+++ test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
glob = to_global(glob, loc);
#if __OPENCL_C_VERSION__ < CL_VERSION_2_0
- // expected-warning@-2{{implicit declaration of function 'to_global' is invalid in C99}}
+ // expected-error@-2{{implicit declaration of function 'to_global' is invalid in OpenCL}}
// expected-warning@-3{{incompatible integer to pointer conversion assigning to '__global int *' from 'int'}}
#else
// expected-error@-5{{invalid number of arguments to function: 'to_global'}}
Index: test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
===
--- test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
+++ test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
@@ -4,41 +4,62 @@
kernel void dse_builtins() {
int tmp;
- enqueue_kernel(tmp, tmp, tmp, ^(void) { // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'enqueue_kernel' is invalid in C99}}
+ enqueue_kernel(tmp, tmp, tmp, ^(void) { // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'enqueue_kernel' is invalid in OpenCL}}
return;
});
- unsigned size = get_kernel_work_group_size(^(void) { // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_work_group_size' is invalid in C99}}
+ unsigned size = get_kernel_work_group_size(^(void) { // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_work_group_size' is invalid in OpenCL}}
return;
});
- size = get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple(^(void) { // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple' is invalid in C99}}
+ size = get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple(^(void) { // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple' is invalid in OpenCL}}
return;
});
}
void pipe_builtins() {
int tmp;
- read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
+ foo(void); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'foo' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{'foo' declared here}}
+ // expected-error@-2{{expected expression}}
+ boo(); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'boo' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{did you mean 'foo'?}}
- reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
+ read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
- work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- work_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
+ reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{'reserve_read_pipe' declared here}}
+ reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{did you mean 'reserve_read_pipe'?}}
- sub_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'sub_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- sub_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'sub_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
+ work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-note@-1 2{{'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' declared here}}
+ 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}}
- commit_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'commit_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- commit_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'commit_write_pipe'
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
Anastasia added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:12449
// function declaration is going to be treated as an error.
- if (Diags.getDiagnosticLevel(diag_id, Loc) >= DiagnosticsEngine::Error) {
+ if (!getLangOpts().OpenCL &&
+ Diags.getDiagnosticLevel(diag_id, Loc) >= DiagnosticsEngine::Error) {
echuraev wrote:
> Anastasia wrote:
> > This way prevents the typo corrections completely for OpenCL which is not
> > very desirable. I was just wondering could we prevent adding the invalid
> > builtin function identifiers instead to the correction candidate list.
> >
> > Like when `work_group_reserve_read_pipe` was first parsed it shouldn't have
> > been added to the list of valid function identifiers to appear in the
> > corrections of 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe'. I am guessing the
> > identifier might be added when builtins are initialized...
> Yes, sorry, I didn't think about it. I investigated the question how can I
> remove invalid functions from correction candidate list. But I have a problem
> and I hope that you will be able to help me.
>
> I found that the correction is added in function `void
> TypoCorrectionConsumer::addName` (in file //SemaLookup.cpp//) which called
> from loop in function `std::unique_ptr
> Sema::makeTypoCorrectionConsumer`. The loop you can see below:
>
> ```
> // For unqualified lookup, look through all of the names that we have
> // seen in this translation unit.
> // FIXME: Re-add the ability to skip very unlikely potential corrections.
> for (const auto : Context.Idents)
> Consumer->FoundName(I.getKey());
> ```
>
> But the map `Context.Idents` already contains names of implicit functions.
> So, I found that names of functions were added to this dictionary during
> parsing AST. After calling `ConsumeToken()` function in `void
> Parser::ParseDeclarationSpecifiers` (in file //ParseDecl.cpp//) implicit
> functions were added to the dictionary. But in this function I'm not able to
> check is the OpenCL function implicit declared or not.
>
> As a result I tried to remove names of implicit functions before calling
> `CorrectTypo`. But unfortunately, we don't have an API for removing items
> from `Context.Idents`. So, I don't know the good way for fixing these
> diagnostic messages. Could you help me please? Do you have any suggestions?
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
Thanks for looking at this!
It seems like we are adding the identifiers to the map too early. So we could:
(a) postpose adding items into `Context.Idents` to `Sema`.
(b) extend `IdentifierTable` interface to support removing items (although it
might not align well with the general concept).
Although (b) feels more natural way conceptually, it might require bigger
changes than (a).
Both need discussion in `cfe-dev` to continue, so it should be addressed in
isolation. If you undo the last change, I am happy to approve the review.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
echuraev added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:12449
// function declaration is going to be treated as an error.
- if (Diags.getDiagnosticLevel(diag_id, Loc) >= DiagnosticsEngine::Error) {
+ if (!getLangOpts().OpenCL &&
+ Diags.getDiagnosticLevel(diag_id, Loc) >= DiagnosticsEngine::Error) {
Anastasia wrote:
> This way prevents the typo corrections completely for OpenCL which is not
> very desirable. I was just wondering could we prevent adding the invalid
> builtin function identifiers instead to the correction candidate list.
>
> Like when `work_group_reserve_read_pipe` was first parsed it shouldn't have
> been added to the list of valid function identifiers to appear in the
> corrections of 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe'. I am guessing the identifier
> might be added when builtins are initialized...
Yes, sorry, I didn't think about it. I investigated the question how can I
remove invalid functions from correction candidate list. But I have a problem
and I hope that you will be able to help me.
I found that the correction is added in function `void
TypoCorrectionConsumer::addName` (in file //SemaLookup.cpp//) which called from
loop in function `std::unique_ptr
Sema::makeTypoCorrectionConsumer`. The loop you can see below:
```
// For unqualified lookup, look through all of the names that we have
// seen in this translation unit.
// FIXME: Re-add the ability to skip very unlikely potential corrections.
for (const auto : Context.Idents)
Consumer->FoundName(I.getKey());
```
But the map `Context.Idents` already contains names of implicit functions. So,
I found that names of functions were added to this dictionary during parsing
AST. After calling `ConsumeToken()` function in `void
Parser::ParseDeclarationSpecifiers` (in file //ParseDecl.cpp//) implicit
functions were added to the dictionary. But in this function I'm not able to
check is the OpenCL function implicit declared or not.
As a result I tried to remove names of implicit functions before calling
`CorrectTypo`. But unfortunately, we don't have an API for removing items from
`Context.Idents`. So, I don't know the good way for fixing these diagnostic
messages. Could you help me please? Do you have any suggestions?
Thank you in advance!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
Anastasia added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:12449
// function declaration is going to be treated as an error.
- if (Diags.getDiagnosticLevel(diag_id, Loc) >= DiagnosticsEngine::Error) {
+ if (!getLangOpts().OpenCL &&
+ Diags.getDiagnosticLevel(diag_id, Loc) >= DiagnosticsEngine::Error) {
This way prevents the typo corrections completely for OpenCL which is not very
desirable. I was just wondering could we prevent adding the invalid builtin
function identifiers instead to the correction candidate list.
Like when `work_group_reserve_read_pipe` was first parsed it shouldn't have
been added to the list of valid function identifiers to appear in the
corrections of 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe'. I am guessing the identifier
might be added when builtins are initialized...
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
echuraev updated this revision to Diff 98958.
echuraev added a comment.
I disabled adding note diagnostic for OpenCL. Addition function to dictionary
occurs in function CurrectTypo. In this function take place creation of
consumer by calling function makeTypoCorrectionConsumer. The function do some
checks and next create consumer by the following code:
auto Consumer = llvm::make_unique(
*this, TypoName, LookupKind, S, SS, std::move(CCC), MemberContext,
EnteringContext);
In constructor TypoCorrectionConsumer occurs adding correction to dictionary
(ValidatedCorrections).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
Files:
include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
Index: test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
===
--- test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
+++ test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
glob = to_global(glob, loc);
#if __OPENCL_C_VERSION__ < CL_VERSION_2_0
- // expected-warning@-2{{implicit declaration of function 'to_global' is invalid in C99}}
+ // expected-error@-2{{implicit declaration of function 'to_global' is invalid in OpenCL}}
// expected-warning@-3{{incompatible integer to pointer conversion assigning to '__global int *' from 'int'}}
#else
// expected-error@-5{{invalid number of arguments to function: 'to_global'}}
Index: test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
===
--- test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
+++ test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
@@ -4,41 +4,45 @@
kernel void dse_builtins() {
int tmp;
- enqueue_kernel(tmp, tmp, tmp, ^(void) { // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'enqueue_kernel' is invalid in C99}}
+ enqueue_kernel(tmp, tmp, tmp, ^(void) { // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'enqueue_kernel' is invalid in OpenCL}}
return;
});
- unsigned size = get_kernel_work_group_size(^(void) { // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_work_group_size' is invalid in C99}}
+ unsigned size = get_kernel_work_group_size(^(void) { // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_work_group_size' is invalid in OpenCL}}
return;
});
- size = get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple(^(void) { // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple' is invalid in C99}}
+ size = get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple(^(void) { // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple' is invalid in OpenCL}}
return;
});
}
void pipe_builtins() {
int tmp;
- read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
+ foo(void); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'foo' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-error@-1{{expected expression}}
+ boo(); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'boo' is invalid in OpenCL}}
- reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
+ read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
- work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- work_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
+ reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
- sub_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'sub_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- sub_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'sub_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
+ work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ work_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
- commit_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'commit_read_pipe' is
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
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}}
echuraev wrote:
> Anastasia wrote:
> > 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.
> I run this test and got a log with errors. The full log you can find in the
> end of the message.
> I think that the diagnostic messages are right. First error we get for
> implicit declaration of **//work_group_reserve_read_pipe//**. After that we
> call function **//work_group_reserve_write_pipe//** and get the same error
> about implicit declaration of function. But also we get two diagnostic
> messages. Compiler already know about **//work_group_reserve_read_pipe//**
> and make a hypothesis: "//note: did you mean
> 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'?//" and "//note:
> 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' declared here//".
> As well, next we have declaration of **//work_group_commit_read_pipe//**. And
> we get an error about implicit declaration of this function and also get a
> note messages: "//note: did you mean 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'?//" and
> "//note: 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' declared here//".
>
>
> > Also do you know why we didn't have these notes before? I don't see
> > anything related in your change.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know why we get these notes. They have appeared when I
> changed the status of diagnostic message for implicit declaration from
> warning to error. If we had only warning messages then we wouldn't have these
> notes.
>
>
>
>
> ```
> clang-builtin-version.cl:35:3: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL
> work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp);
> ^
>
> clang-builtin-version.cl:37:3: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL
> work_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp);
> ^
> clang-builtin-version.cl:37:3: note: did you mean
> 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'?
> clang-builtin-version.cl:35:3: note: 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' declared
> here
> work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp);
> ^
>
> clang-builtin-version.cl:50:3: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'work_group_commit_read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL
> work_group_commit_read_pipe(tmp, tmp);
> ^
> clang-builtin-version.cl:50:3: note: did you mean
> 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'?
> clang-builtin-version.cl:35:3: note: 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' declared
> here
> work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp);
> ^
> ```
I find those notes counterintuitive to be honest because if there is an error
given for the function declaration - let's say `foo()`, it shouldn't have been
added anywhere to any dictionary because if the next function let's say `foa()`
is corrected to match the name from the note (i.e. `foo()`) it is already known
that it won't be compiled too. So to me this note seems wrong because it
attempts to correct to something which is already known not to be compiled. I
think it's worth digging into it a bit more...
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
echuraev 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:
> 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.
I run this test and got a log with errors. The full log you can find in the end
of the message.
I think that the diagnostic messages are right. First error we get for implicit
declaration of **//work_group_reserve_read_pipe//**. After that we call
function **//work_group_reserve_write_pipe//** and get the same error about
implicit declaration of function. But also we get two diagnostic messages.
Compiler already know about **//work_group_reserve_read_pipe//** and make a
hypothesis: "//note: did you mean 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'?//" and
"//note: 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' declared here//".
As well, next we have declaration of **//work_group_commit_read_pipe//**. And
we get an error about implicit declaration of this function and also get a note
messages: "//note: did you mean 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'?//" and "//note:
'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' declared here//".
> Also do you know why we didn't have these notes before? I don't see anything
> related in your change.
Unfortunately, I don't know why we get these notes. They have appeared when I
changed the status of diagnostic message for implicit declaration from warning
to error. If we had only warning messages then we wouldn't have these notes.
```
clang-builtin-version.cl:35:3: error: implicit declaration of function
'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL
work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp);
^
clang-builtin-version.cl:37:3: error: implicit declaration of function
'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL
work_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp);
^
clang-builtin-version.cl:37:3: note: did you mean
'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'?
clang-builtin-version.cl:35:3: note: 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' declared
here
work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp);
^
clang-builtin-version.cl:50:3: error: implicit declaration of function
'work_group_commit_read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL
work_group_commit_read_pipe(tmp, tmp);
^
clang-builtin-version.cl:50:3: note: did you mean
'work_group_reserve_read_pipe'?
clang-builtin-version.cl:35:3: note: 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' declared
here
work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp);
^
```
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
echuraev added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:8254
"%0 cannot be used as the type of a kernel parameter">;
+def err_opencl_implicit_function_decl : Error<
+ "implicit declaration of function %0 is invalid in OpenCL">;
Anastasia wrote:
> Could this be in OpenCL group please?
But this is already in OpenCL group. Please, see line 8232. In this line is a
comment that OpenCL warnings and errors are below.
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:
> 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//
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
echuraev updated this revision to Diff 94537.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
Files:
include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
Index: test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
===
--- test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
+++ test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
glob = to_global(glob, loc);
#if __OPENCL_C_VERSION__ < CL_VERSION_2_0
- // expected-warning@-2{{implicit declaration of function 'to_global' is invalid in C99}}
+ // expected-error@-2{{implicit declaration of function 'to_global' is invalid in OpenCL}}
// expected-warning@-3{{incompatible integer to pointer conversion assigning to '__global int *' from 'int'}}
#else
// expected-error@-5{{invalid number of arguments to function: 'to_global'}}
Index: test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
===
--- test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
+++ test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
@@ -4,41 +4,62 @@
kernel void dse_builtins() {
int tmp;
- enqueue_kernel(tmp, tmp, tmp, ^(void) { // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'enqueue_kernel' is invalid in C99}}
+ enqueue_kernel(tmp, tmp, tmp, ^(void) { // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'enqueue_kernel' is invalid in OpenCL}}
return;
});
- unsigned size = get_kernel_work_group_size(^(void) { // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_work_group_size' is invalid in C99}}
+ unsigned size = get_kernel_work_group_size(^(void) { // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_work_group_size' is invalid in OpenCL}}
return;
});
- size = get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple(^(void) { // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple' is invalid in C99}}
+ size = get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple(^(void) { // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple' is invalid in OpenCL}}
return;
});
}
void pipe_builtins() {
int tmp;
- read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
+ foo(void); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'foo' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{'foo' declared here}}
+ // expected-error@-2{{expected expression}}
+ boo(); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'boo' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{did you mean 'foo'?}}
- reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
+ read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
- work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- work_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
+ reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{'reserve_read_pipe' declared here}}
+ reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{did you mean 'reserve_read_pipe'?}}
- sub_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'sub_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- sub_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'sub_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
+ work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-note@-1 2{{'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' declared here}}
+ 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}}
- commit_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'commit_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- commit_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'commit_write_pipe' is
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
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
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
Anastasia added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:8254
"%0 cannot be used as the type of a kernel parameter">;
+def err_opencl_implicit_function_decl : Error<
+ "implicit declaration of function %0 is invalid in OpenCL">;
echuraev wrote:
> Anastasia wrote:
> > Could this be in OpenCL group please?
> But this is already in OpenCL group. Please, see line 8232. In this line is a
> comment that OpenCL warnings and errors are below.
Ah yes! Sorry, I got confused by the absence of opencl in the neighboring
diagnostics. :)
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}}
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.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
Anastasia added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:8254
"%0 cannot be used as the type of a kernel parameter">;
+def err_opencl_implicit_function_decl : Error<
+ "implicit declaration of function %0 is invalid in OpenCL">;
Could this be in OpenCL group please?
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}}
Why do we get this note now? I believe work_group_reserve_read_pipe shouldn't
be available either?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
yaxunl added a comment. What happens if user declared a function without parameter as `void f();` instead of `void f(void)` then try to use it? Will this be treated as implicit declaration and results in an error instead of warning? https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31745: [OpenCL] Added diagnostic for implicit declaration of function in OpenCL
echuraev created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: yaxunl.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31745
Files:
include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
Index: test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
===
--- test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
+++ test/SemaOpenCL/to_addr_builtin.cl
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
glob = to_global(glob, loc);
#if __OPENCL_C_VERSION__ < CL_VERSION_2_0
- // expected-warning@-2{{implicit declaration of function 'to_global' is invalid in C99}}
+ // expected-error@-2{{implicit declaration of function 'to_global' is invalid in OpenCL}}
// expected-warning@-3{{incompatible integer to pointer conversion assigning to '__global int *' from 'int'}}
#else
// expected-error@-5{{invalid number of arguments to function: 'to_global'}}
Index: test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
===
--- test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
+++ test/SemaOpenCL/clang-builtin-version.cl
@@ -4,41 +4,56 @@
kernel void dse_builtins() {
int tmp;
- enqueue_kernel(tmp, tmp, tmp, ^(void) { // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'enqueue_kernel' is invalid in C99}}
+ enqueue_kernel(tmp, tmp, tmp, ^(void) { // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'enqueue_kernel' is invalid in OpenCL}}
return;
});
- unsigned size = get_kernel_work_group_size(^(void) { // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_work_group_size' is invalid in C99}}
+ unsigned size = get_kernel_work_group_size(^(void) { // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_work_group_size' is invalid in OpenCL}}
return;
});
- size = get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple(^(void) { // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple' is invalid in C99}}
+ size = get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple(^(void) { // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'get_kernel_preferred_work_group_size_multiple' is invalid in OpenCL}}
return;
});
}
void pipe_builtins() {
int tmp;
- read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
-
- reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
-
- work_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- work_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
-
- sub_group_reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'sub_group_reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- sub_group_reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'sub_group_reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
-
- commit_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'commit_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- commit_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'commit_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
-
- work_group_commit_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_commit_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- work_group_commit_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'work_group_commit_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
-
- sub_group_commit_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'sub_group_commit_write_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
- sub_group_commit_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'sub_group_commit_read_pipe' is invalid in C99}}
-
- get_pipe_num_packets(tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'get_pipe_num_packets' is invalid in C99}}
- get_pipe_max_packets(tmp); // expected-warning{{implicit declaration of function 'get_pipe_max_packets' is invalid in C99}}
+ read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+
+ reserve_read_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_read_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{'reserve_read_pipe' declared here}}
+ reserve_write_pipe(tmp, tmp); // expected-error{{implicit declaration of function 'reserve_write_pipe' is invalid in OpenCL}}
+ //
