kovdan01 added a comment. In D120129#3410510 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120129#3410510>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> 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. OK, thanks for the explanation! Can we just submit a new patch with a fix (like D122550 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122550>) instead of reverting this one? The problem with revert is that we should also revert D122381 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122381> which depends on this patch. Also, adding tests for `null` `nvvm.annotations` and the annotations with 5 arguments IMHO will look better when submitted as a separate patch. So, it revert crucial for you or can we just submit a fix separately? 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
