rsmith added a comment.
Broadly, I think it's reasonable to number additional lambda expressions in
CUDA compilations. However:
- This is (in theory) an ABI break on the host side, as it changes the lambda
numbering in inline functions and function templates and the like. That could
be mitigated by using a different numbering sequence for the lambdas that are
only numbered for this reason.
- Depending on whether the call operator is a device function is unstable. If I
understand the CUDA rules correctly, then in practice, because `constexpr`
functions are implicitly `host device`, all lambdas will get numbered in CUDA
on C++14 onwards but not in CUDA on C++11, and we generally want those modes to
be ABI-compatible. I'd suggest you simplify and stabilize this by simply
numbering all lambdas in CUDA mode.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaLambda.cpp:477
+ // mangled name. But, the mangler needs informing those re-numbered lambdas
+ // still have `internal` linkage.
+ if (getLangOpts().CUDA && Method->hasAttr<CUDADeviceAttr>()) {
----------------
What happens if there are other enclosing constructs that would give the lambda
internal linkage (eg, an anonymous namespace or static function that might
collide with one in another translation unit, or a declaration involving a type
with internal linkage)? Presumably you can still suffer from mangling
collisions in those cases, at least if you link together multiple translation
units containing device code. Do we need (something like) unique identifiers
for device code TUs to use in manglings of ostensibly internal linkage entities?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68818/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68818
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
