done

Add one unrealistic case for test purpose only.

done

revise following reviewer's suggestion.

@rsmith Do you have the chance to review this patch?

@rsmith Do you have the chance to review this patch?

ping

In D61458#1488970, @jlebar wrote:

Here's one for you:

__host__ float bar();
__device__ int bar();
__host__ __device__ auto foo() -> decltype(bar()) {}

What is the return type of foo? :)

I don't believe the right answer is, "float when compiling for host, int when compiling for device."

I'd be happy if we said this was an error, so long as it's well-defined what exactly we're disallowing. But I bet @rsmith can come up with substantially more evil testcases than this.

In D61458#1488981, @rjmccall wrote:

In D61458#1488972, @hfinkel wrote:

In D61458#1488970, @jlebar wrote:

Here's one for you:

__host__ float bar();
__device__ int bar();
__host__ __device__ auto foo() -> decltype(bar()) {}

What is the return type of foo? :)

I don't believe the right answer is, "float when compiling for host, int when compiling for device."

So, actually, I wonder if that's not the right answer. We generally allow different overloads to have different return types.

Only if they also differ in some other way. C++ does not (generally) have return-type-based overloading. The two functions described would even mangle the same way if CUDA didn't include host/device in the mangling.

(Function templates can differ only by return type, but if both return types successfully instantiate for a given set of (possibly inferred) template arguments then the templates can only be distinguished when taking their address, not when calling.)

I think I've said before that adding this kind of overloading is not a good idea, but since it's apparently already there, you should consult the specification (or at least existing practice) to figure out what you're supposed to do.

In D61458#1488970, @jlebar wrote:

Here's one for you:

__host__ float bar();
__device__ int bar();
__host__ __device__ auto foo() -> decltype(bar()) {}

What is the return type of foo? :)

I don't believe the right answer is, "float when compiling for host, int when compiling for device."

I'd be happy if we said this was an error, so long as it's well-defined what exactly we're disallowing. But I bet @rsmith can come up with substantially more evil testcases than this.

simplify the logic using llvm::any_of.

In D61458#1488523, @tra wrote:

Perhaps we should allow this in all unevaluated contexts?
I.e. int s = sizeof(foo(x)); should also work.

@rsmith do you have the chance to review this simple fix?

In D61396#1486706, @tra wrote:

LGTM, but I've added @rsmith who is way more familiar with this code.

Hi Chen

In D60071#1450787, @arsenm wrote:

LGTM

revise again

more revising

revise more

Add tests for DS addressing mode.

In D59608#1449894, @arsenm wrote:

In D59608#1436942, @hliao wrote:

sorry, saw this too late, will address in another patch

ping

just search bugzilla and, fortunately, found this issue is reported 2+ years ago @ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30559. I will revise the test case to PR30559 and move it into test/SemaCXX/nonnull.cpp

just explain what's the issue is and hope that help reviewers to get this fix quick.

LGTM

Thanks. Done!

sorry, saw this too late, will address in another patch

Ah, yes, but this patch covers more cases. Shall we merge them together.

revise again

Update the test case following reviewers' comments.

Add minimal MIR test