jdoerfert added a comment. In D120129#3410493 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120129#3410493>, @kovdan01 wrote:
> In D120129#3410479 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120129#3410479>, @jdoerfert > wrote: > >> Please revert this commit. It breaks any code using the cuda.11.0.2 >> libdevice.bc file, the source of the `null` `nvvm.annotations` and the >> annotations with 5 arguments. See below. >> Once a fix is in, and a test is added, we can reapply this. >> >> $ opt -S .../cuda-11.0.2/nvvm/libdevice/libdevice.10.bc | tail >> !nvvm.annotations = !{!1, !2, !1, !3, !3, !3, !3, !4, !4, !3} >> >> !0 = !{i32 1, i32 4} >> !1 = !{null, !"align", i32 8} >> !2 = !{null, !"align", i32 8, !"align", i32 65544, !"align", i32 131080} >> !3 = !{null, !"align", i32 16} >> !4 = !{null, !"align", i32 16, !"align", i32 65552, !"align", i32 131088} >> !5 = distinct !{!5, !6} > > Got it, will revert the patch shortly. Could you please describe what do you > mean by "break" in a bit more detail? Is that only about poorly designed and > failing assertions in `getFunctionParamOptimizedAlign` or there are some > other (maybe even functional) issues? If that's only about assertions, won't > using `isKernelFunction` (as suggested in D122550 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122550>) help? The two assertions introduced here do not hold for the libdevice.bc above. So whenever we link the above we will cause the assertions to fail. That's what I mean with break. isKernelFunction is probably going to fix all that. For a test, copy annotations like the above into one of the .ll files and make sure it contains a private/internal function w/ arguments as well. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D120129/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D120129 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
