tra added a comment. In D79344#2018628 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79344#2018628>, @hliao wrote:
> In D79344#2018561 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79344#2018561>, @tra wrote: > > > This has a good chance of breaking existing code. It would be great to add > > an escape hatch option to revert to the old behavior if we run into > > problems. The change is relatively simple, so reverting it in case > > something goes wrong should work, too. Up to you. > > > Why? for the cases addressed in this patch, if there is existing code, it > won't be compiled to generate module file due to the missing symbol. Anything > missing? Logistics, mostly. Overloading is a rather fragile area of CUDA. This is the area where clang and NVCC behave differently. Combined with the existing code that needs to work with both compilers, even minor changes in compiler behavior can result in unexpected issues. Stricter checks tend to expose existing code which happens to work (or to compile) when it should not have, but it's not always trivial to fix those quickly. Having an escape hatch allows us to deal with those issues. It allows the owner of the code to reproduce the problem while the rest of the world continues to work. Reverting is suboptimal as the end user is often not in a good position to build a compiler with your patch plumbed in and then plumb the patched compiler into their build system. Adding another compiler option to enable/disable the new behavior is much more manageable. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79344/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79344 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
