hliao marked an inline comment as done. hliao added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCUDANV.cpp:222-226 + assert((CGF.CGM.getContext().getAuxTargetInfo() && + (CGF.CGM.getContext().getAuxTargetInfo()->getCXXABI() != + CGF.CGM.getContext().getTargetInfo().getCXXABI())) || + getDeviceStubName(getDeviceSideName(CGF.CurFuncDecl)) == + CGF.CurFn->getName()); ---------------- hliao wrote: > tra wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand what exactly this assertion checks. > > The condition appears to be true is host/device ABIs are different OR the > > name of the current function is the same as the (possibly mangled) > > device-side name + __device_stub_ prefix. > > > > While the first part makes sense, I'm not sure I understand the name > > comparison part. > > Could you tell me more and, maybe, add a comment explaining what's going on > > here. > The second is to ensure, if, under the same ABI, kernel stub name derived > from device-side name mangling should be the same the sub name generated from > host-side, CGF.CurFn->getName() is the mangled named from host compilation previous assertion expression gets the same goal, if ABI is different, the stub name from device-side should match the stub name from the host-side compilation. As we add a dedicated interface to the derive stub name, we could simplify the comparison to a single one. Also, we put the simple condition checking ahead (a common practice) to reduce the overhead of string comparison Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63335/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63335 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
