Conflict between BOOST_NOINLINE and HIP compiler

[markdewing]

The hipcc compiler (tested on rocm 4.3) defines __noinline__ as __atribute__((noinline)) (in /opt/rocm-4.3.0/hip/include/hip/amd_detail/host_defines.h)
This definition mixes with the boost definition to create an incorrect __attribute__ statement
Shows up when including stacktrace.hpp

Reproducer

// Workaround
//#define BOOST_NOINLINE __attribute__((noinline))__

#define BOOST_STACKTRACE_USE_BACKTRACE
#include <stacktrace.hpp>

#include <hip/hip_runtime.h>

int main()
{
    return 0;
}

BOOST_NOINLINE void stuff()
{
    int i = 1;
}

Compile with hipcc and get the following output

boost_test.cpp:13:1: error: use of undeclared identifier 'noinline'; did you mean 'inline'?
BOOST_NOINLINE void stuff()
^
/usr/include/boost/config/detail/suffix.hpp:623:46: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_NOINLINE'
#      define BOOST_NOINLINE __attribute__ ((__noinline__))
                                             ^
/opt/rocm-4.3.0/hip/include/hip/amd_detail/host_defines.h:50:37: note: expanded from macro '__noinline__'
#define __noinline__ __attribute__((noinline))
                                    ^
boost_test.cpp:13:1: error: type name does not allow function specifier to be specified
/usr/include/boost/config/detail/suffix.hpp:623:46: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_NOINLINE'
#      define BOOST_NOINLINE __attribute__ ((__noinline__))
                                             ^
/opt/rocm-4.3.0/hip/include/hip/amd_detail/host_defines.h:50:37: note: expanded from macro '__noinline__'
#define __noinline__ __attribute__((noinline))
                                    ^
boost_test.cpp:13:1: error: expected expression
/usr/include/boost/config/detail/suffix.hpp:623:46: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_NOINLINE'
#      define BOOST_NOINLINE __attribute__ ((__noinline__))
                                             ^
/opt/rocm-4.3.0/hip/include/hip/amd_detail/host_defines.h:50:46: note: expanded from macro '__noinline__'
#define __noinline__ __attribute__((noinline))
                                             ^
3 errors generated when compiling for gfx900.

The fix in boost is likely to be a check similar to the check for __CUDACC__ already in the BOOST_NOINLINE definition. I don't know the correct preprocessor symbol to use for checking for HIP compilation.

[jzmaddock]

Can you please verify that #393 fixes this for you?

[markdewing]

Yes, #393 fixes this issue for me.

[atamazov]

@markdewing

I don't know the correct preprocessor symbol to use for checking for HIP compilation.

Please look at https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/HIP/blob/develop/docs/markdown/hip_porting_guide.md#compiler-defines-summary. __HIP__ is defined for HIP-Clang only and should work fine in this case.

[atamazov]

@jzmaddock @markdewing HIP_VERSION is not defined in the HIP-clang but defined in HIP headers. Therefore the usage of HIP_VERSION creates dependence on the order of inclusion of BOOST and HIP headers (for example, please see ROCm/MIOpen#1490 (comment)). I highly recommend reopening the issue and re-implementing the fix (please see previous comment for advice).

[jzmaddock]

So is simply changing HIP_VERSION to __HIP__ the correct fix?

[atamazov]

@jzmaddock Yes. If there is any doubt, then I think we can ask @markdewing to check if this works ;)