-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 794
[NFC][SYCL] Relax the check in layout_exception #13748
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
In different version of glibc , we may get `struct` instead of `class`. To avoid noisy failures, we can remove the keyword check here.
sycl/test/abi/layout_exception.cpp
Outdated
| // CHECK-NEXT: 40 | class std::__shared_count<> _M_refcount | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: 40 | _Sp_counted_base<(_Lock_policy)2U> * _M_pi | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: 48 | class std::error_code MErrC | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: std::error_code MErrC |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we instead do something like {{class|struct}} std::error_code... ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can, but I don't think that will improve the testing, eg: we may fail again if there are some other keywords around it due to different env.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think "48" is kind of important here because we do want to know the offsets and ensure it's unchanged for the purposes of ABI compatibility. I think @uditagarwal97 's initial suggestion is the way to go.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fine for me for now.
uditagarwal97
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
|
@intel/llvm-gatekeepers Please help to merge this. Thanks. |
1 similar comment
|
@intel/llvm-gatekeepers Please help to merge this. Thanks. |
|
@intel/llvm-gatekeepers Please help to merge this. Thanks. |
In different version of glibc , we may get
structinstead ofclass.To avoid noisy failures, we can remove the keyword check here.