gtbercea added a comment. In D63009#1544984 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63009#1544984>, @ABataev wrote:
> In D63009#1544900 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63009#1544900>, @gtbercea wrote: > > > In D63009#1544758 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63009#1544758>, @Hahnfeld > > wrote: > > > > > Am I correct that the second to last revision ("- Fix tests.") removed > > > all checks for the actual `device_id` argument from the tests? From my > > > point of view that's not fixing but weakening the tests! Can you explain > > > why they needed "fixing"? > > > > > > When I was just passing the default value the LLVM-IR was: i64 -1 i.e. > > constant, easy to check. > > > > With the latest change the emitted code is: i64 %123 i.e. where %123 is a > > local derived from the expression of the device ID. > > > If the value is constant, check for the constant. All the tests here use expressions so the value is never constant. If you'd like me to add a test with constant I can. > And at least several tests with the expressions should check for the correct > value of the expression. I'll have to check how to do this. There's nothing that distinguishes an expression that represents the device ID from any other expression in the code. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63009/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63009 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
