-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 229
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
compiler: Add host-*-pin handles; more volatile with pthreads #2116
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2116 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 87.75% 87.71% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 221 221
Lines 39010 39030 +20
Branches 5068 5075 +7
==========================================
+ Hits 34233 34236 +3
- Misses 4215 4232 +17
Partials 562 562
|
if obj is candidate: | ||
return True | ||
|
||
# Names are unique throughout compilation, so this is another case we can handle |
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.
the compilation (?)
def sanitize_ncfields(ncfields): | ||
# Due to a bug in the NVC compiler (v<=22.7 and potentially later), | ||
# we have to use C's `volatile` more extensively than strictly necessary | ||
# to avoid flaky optimizations that would cause fauly behaviour in rare, |
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.
faulty*
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.
Looks mostly fine, not sure what this volatile is but I trust you on it
if obj.name == candidate.name: | ||
return True | ||
|
||
if obj.is_AbstractFunction: |
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.
Are these case really needed? Will obviously always return false passed this line no matter
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.
not strictly speaking and not today, but they were in the back of my mind already, so I put them there for the future
0c3ec62
to
63e57c1
Compare
No description provided.