Remove resolution operators for nvcc compilation #1167
+5
−5
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Collaborator
|
See cameron314/concurrentqueue@594bae4 Could you try reverting d3783ae and see if it fixes your issue on nvcc ? The namespace was originally added for an old version of GCC, not sure what version does not need this. |
Author
|
Hi @Lectem thanks for the quick reply. It seems that d3783ae only addresses a subset of the scoped calls that my PR addresses. Was there a reason for testing that specific commit as opposed to my changes? And yeah, not sure what version of GCC cannot compile the unscoped calls either, but I'm currently compiling with GCC 13.3.0. And nvcc versions 12 and 13 fail to compile the scoped calls. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
nvcc can't compile member function calls written as
block->ConcurrentQueue::Block::<member function>(). Is there a reason to use this calling convention?