yaxunl added a comment. In D68578#1737419 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68578#1737419>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D68578#1737415 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68578#1737415>, @yaxunl wrote: > > > In D68578#1737351 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68578#1737351>, @rjmccall > > wrote: > > > > > Distinguishing between multiple symbols associated with the same > > > source-level declaration is the purpose of the GlobalDecl abstraction. > > > > > > It seems GlobalDecl is just a wrapper for concrete Decl's > > > It's a `Decl` plus a discriminator which is required for certain kinds of > declaration. See e.g. `GlobalDecl(const CXXConstructorDecl *D, CXXCtorType > Type)`. `GlobalDecl` asserts if you try to construct it using > `GlobalDecl(FunctionDecl*)` with a constructor/destructor declaration; we > could similarly make that forbid construction with a kernel and then require > code to use a `GlobalDecl` constructor that passes down whether it's the > kernel or the stub that's being requested. > > John. In host compilation, we do not need to differentiate device function or stub function except for the mangler. Currently the mangler does not know about GlobalDecl. If we let the mangler to mangle a function based on whether it is a GlobalDecl or FunctionDecl, we still need to modify the mangler, and the change will be similar to the current approach. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68578/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68578 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
