RyanRio wrote: > Supporting an asyncmark instruction that does not explicitly specify the > types of asyncmarks it is pointing to (whether it is TENSOR , ASYNC or > whatever it is) seems unnecessarily ambiguous, I don't see the benefit from > doing so. Instead if we had to specify the types of asyncmarks explicitly > (which we don't currently do) it would be easier to associate the asyncwaits > to the corresponding asyncmarks.
I'd appreciate an example to ensure I'm understanding your point correctly, I can think of a few different interpretations of this https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/220442 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
