vzakhari wrote:
> It would be better to have the types that are available on the device declare
> themselves so in their declarations via a member or (better) inherited trait.
Like this. I will add the type trait for those types that are available on the
device.
> The big variant union in `IoStatementState` could omit the host-only options
> when compiled for the device.
I am not sure what you are suggesting. I cannot comment out (e.g. with
`RT_DEVICE_OUTPUT` check) the members of `std::variant<...> u_` union, because
this will require commenting out all class declarations that try to explicitly
access/emplace an instance of the commented out class into the union member.
For example,
```
class NoUnitIoStatementState : public IoStatementBase {
...
template <typename A>
NoUnitIoStatementState(A &stmt, const char *sourceFile = nullptr,
int sourceLine = 0, int badUnitNumber = -1)
: IoStatementBase{sourceFile, sourceLine}, ioStatementState_{stmt},
badUnitNumber_{badUnitNumber} {}
...
};
class NoopStatementState : public NoUnitIoStatementState {
public:
NoopStatementState(
const char *sourceFile = nullptr, int sourceLine = 0, int unitNumber = -1)
: NoUnitIoStatementState{*this, sourceFile, sourceLine, unitNumber} {}
...
};
```
`ioStatementState_{stmt}` is invalid if the union does not have
`NoUnitIoStatementState` variant. There are more examples like this, and there
is a lot of code that will need to be commented out for the device compilation
if I modify the union declaration. Maybe I misunderstood your comment, though.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85179
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
