erichkeane wrote: > > Question: I followed the Destroy design from OpenACC.td and also passed the > > original value. I am wondering if that it is needed > > This issue was previously discussed > [here](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/156545#discussion_r2317296732), > and my reasoning is based on the principles of consistency, generality, and > flexibility: > > * Consistency: All recipe regions take "original" as the first argument, > ensuring uniformity across the design. > > * Generality: If a dialect does not encode sufficient information within > its private variable to destroy it, the necessary type information can be > retrieved from the original variable. While this is not crucial for CIR, FIR, > and memref, it provides a robust fallback. > > * Flexibility: Including the original variable allows for custom recipe > bodies. For example, if a runtime listener call is embedded within the recipe > body, it could report both the address of the original variable and the > private copy upon destruction. Although this is also a weaker argument, it > highlights potential use cases. > > > Moreover, the additional argument will be effectively a no-op after recipe > materialization if the dialect-specific recipe implementation does not > require it, thus incurring no cost. However, should we need to incorporate > this in the future, it would involve considerable rework and IR test > modifications. > > Since we are revisiting this design decision, I would like to either get > buy-in or agree to change it and remove the extra argument now. @erichkeane > @clementval
It doesn't matter to me. It is simply an unused argument so far for me, and I don't see myself using it again? If it were to disappear I'd need notice (or a verifier would be preferential!), but otherwise I have no problem with it. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/162702 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
