tra added a comment. In D63335#1544019 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63335#1544019>, @hliao wrote:
> In D63335#1543854 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63335#1543854>, @tra wrote: > > > In D63335#1543845 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63335#1543845>, @hliao wrote: > > > > > it's requested from debugger people. they don't want to the host-side > > > stub could match the device-side kernel function name. the previous > > > scheme cannot prevent that. > > > > > > I understand that you want a different name for the stub. My question is > > why the ".stub" suffix was not sufficient and how does having a prefix > > instead helps? Making the name un-demangleable is undesirable, IMO. There > > should be a good reason to justify it. > > > it's based on debugger people told me, with ".stub", the debugger still could > find it match the original device kernel even though it could find both of > them. But, they want to match the original one only and leave the stub one > intentionally unmatched. Sorry, I still don't think I understand the reasons for this change. The stub and the kernel do have a different name now. I don't quite get it why the debugger can differentiate the names when they differ by prefix, but can't when they differ by suffix. It sounds like an attempt to work around a problem somewhere else. Could you talk to the folks requesting the change and get more details on what exactly we need to do here and, more importantly, why. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63335/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63335 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
