ABataev added a comment. In D71179#1776457 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71179#1776457>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> > You're doing absolutely the same thing as the original declare variant > > implementation. > > I don't think so but if you do why do you oppose this approach? > > > And I don't think it would be correct to add them as multiversiin variants > > to the original function. > > Why wouldn't it be correct to pick the version through the overload > resolution instead of the code generation? > How this could work is already described in the TODO (CodeGenModule.cpp): > > // TODO: We should introduce function aliases for `omp declare variant` > // directives such that we can treat them through the same overload > // resolution scheme (via multi versioning) as `omp begin declare > // variant` functions. For an `omp declare variant(VARIANT) ...` > // that is attached to a BASE function we would create a global alias > // VARIANT = BASE which will participate in the multi version overload > // resolution. If picked, here is no need to emit them explicitly. > > > > > --- > > I still haven't understood why we cannot/should not reuse the existing > multi-version support and instead duplicate the logic in some custom scheme. > We have this patch that shows how we can reuse the logic in Clang. It works > on a per-call basis, so it will work for all context selector (incl. > construct). > If you think there is something conceptually not working, I'd like to hear > about it. However, just saying "it wouldn't be correct" is not sufficient. > You need to provide details about the situation, what you think would not > work, and why. I explayned already: declare variant cannot be represented as mutiversion functiin, for example. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71179/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71179 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
