hliao added a comment. In D80858#2177159 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80858#2177159>, @tra wrote:
> It's a good point. Perhaps this is one of the cases where we should *not* > follow nvcc. > We can't have our cake (preserve static behavior) and eat it (treat it as > non-static in case something on the host side may decide to use an API which > uses symbol names). Something's got to give. While we could make it work in > some cases, I don't think we can make it work consistently. > I think it would be reasonable to restrict APIs that access symbols by name > to be applicable to visible symbols only. In fact, 'nvcc' does that by globalizing that static device variable. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80858/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80858 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
