This reverts commit 27e6e4a4d0e3296cebad8db577ec0469a286795e.
This patch is reverted due to regression. A testcase is:
`template <class T>
struct ptr {
~ptr() { static int x = 1;}
};
template <class T>
struct Abc : ptr<T> {
public:
Abc();
~Abc() {}
};
template
class Abc<int>;
`
This reverts commit a1e2c6566305061c115954b048f2957c8d55cb5b.
Revert this patch due to regression. A testcase is:
`template <typename T>
class C {
explicit C() {};
};
template <> C<int>::C() {};
`
When deciding whether a previous function declaration is an overload or
override, implicit host/device attrs should not be considered.
This fixes the failure for the following code:
`template <typename T>
class C {
explicit C() {};
};
template <> C<int>::C() {};
`
The issue was introduced by
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72394
sine the template specialization is treated as overload due to implicit
host/device attrs are considered for overload/override differentiation.
Make trivial ctor/dtor implicitly host device functions so that they can
be used to initialize file-scope
device variables to match nvcc behavior.
Fixes: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/72261
Fixes: SWDEV-432412
ShouldDeleteSpecialMember is called upon inherited constructors.
It calls inferCUDATargetForImplicitSpecialMember.
Normally the special member enum passed to ShouldDeleteSpecialMember
matches the constructor. However this is not true when inherited
constructor is passed, where DefaultConstructor is passed to treat
the inherited constructor as DefaultConstructor. However
inferCUDATargetForImplicitSpecialMember expects the special
member enum argument to match the constructor, which results
in assertion when this expection is not satisfied.
This patch checks whether the constructor is inherited. If true it will
get the real special member enum for the constructor and pass it
to inferCUDATargetForImplicitSpecialMember.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51809
llvm-svn: 344057
