jdoerfert added a comment. In D120129#3410512 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120129#3410512>, @kovdan01 wrote:
> 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, is revert crucial > for you or can we just submit a fix separately? Our internal build bots and CI for some projects are broken for 3 days. I wish to unbreak them so we get actual meaningful results, e.g., see if something else is breaking our build. I'm fine with a separate patch on top but I would prefer it now so people can run code on Monday. 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
