yaxunl added a comment. In D80858#2177159 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80858#2177159>, @tra wrote:
> It's a good point. Perhaps this is one of the cases where we should *not* > follow nvcc. > We can't have our cake (preserve static behavior) and eat it (treat it as > non-static in case something on the host side may decide to use an API which > uses symbol names). Something's got to give. While we could make it work in > some cases, I don't think we can make it work consistently. > I think it would be reasonable to restrict APIs that access symbols by name > to be applicable to visible symbols only. Agree, we only need to support accessing static device var by shadow var (runtime API), which is sufficient for most apps. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80858/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80858 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
