Skip to content

[SYCL][Compilation] Question on Mangling of Record Types #304

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Closed
agozillon opened this issue Jul 11, 2019 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3915
Closed

[SYCL][Compilation] Question on Mangling of Record Types #304

agozillon opened this issue Jul 11, 2019 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3915
Assignees

Comments

@agozillon
Copy link
Contributor

agozillon commented Jul 11, 2019

So I was looking through some Kernel IR recently and I had a question on why we're currently mangling RecordDecl's during CodeGen inside of the addRecordTypeName function, snippet here: https://github.com/intel/llvm/blob/sycl/clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenTypes.cpp#L64

There is a comment right now but it isn't too descriptive (probably because I lack the background knowledge) to me about what the problem it's solving is, to me it seems to be a Re-flower thing, as it mentions reflown to a proper name? If it is a Re-flower related segment of code, do we still require it as we've removed the Re-flower pass?

We currently don't have an issue with this piece of code, but I was interested in what the workaround is currently for! Thanks.

@bader
Copy link
Contributor

bader commented Jul 31, 2019

@agozillon, good question.
I think you are right assuming that it was added with the re-flower pass.
2260ff1

@Fznamznon, could you check if this code is still needed, please?

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants