Hi, welcome! Thank you for the careful and well-motivated first commit. (I also see https://github.com/ccache/ccache/issues/772, hooray for noticing that...)

This looks reasonable to me (and I appreciate all the debugging in the Julia bug!), but I have never touched this code, so I don't 100% feel comfortable approving the change.

In case it's not used in PHI or SELECT and cannot ensure the result is also a pointer to the parameter space, we could skip alloca insertion.

I don't believe there's any exception to prove deduction [of the readonly attribute] wrong.

This looks really simple, which is awesome. I am enthusiastic. But I am worried it may not be correct.

How fun. :)

I am legit excited about this if we could figure out how to make it work, but I don't have anything to add beyond what tra said.

The bottomline seems to be that the proposed formalism achieves the following: <snip>

LGTM. I think the change would make sense for CUDA, too. @jlebar - WDYT?

Man, phab doesn't make this easy, does it?

Hi. :) A few people pinged me asking for my feedback here, since I touched the convergent attr way back in the day, for CUDA.

LGTM modulo emankov's comment.

Fix bug in test command line, and fix commit message.

It does not quite match what we do here.

Hey, I'm leaving on a vacation tomorrow and didn't have a chance to get to
this review today.

It looks like 11.1 doesn't have a version.txt file

It should. I did mention in a previous comment that > Looks like the const-ness check should not be there, either. I need to revise the patch.

OK, now I'm starting to I understand this change..

OK, backing up, what are the semantics of static on __constant__, __device__, and __shared__?

wha... As you know, const doesn't mean anything, that can be const-casted away. And then you'll be able to observe that this nominally-static variable is just a normal variable.

I know it comes in a separate change, but can we add a check to the test-suite?

LGTM, and can we write a test in the test-suite?

tra and I talked offline and I...think this makes sense.

@RKSimon and others, thank you for the review and comments. Sorry for my delay here; this has changed from being my day job to my weekend hobby, and that made a bigger difference in my responsiveness than I'd like or than I expected.

Update per comments.

Thank you for the comments!

Submitted as a4384c756bd8a8190510. I'm working from my wife's machine and accidentally submitted with her name instead of mine. Oops. :)

Thank you for the reviews!

@RKSimon friendly ping

Do we have any nontrivially-long namespaces in LLVM?

In D74384#1872246, @thakis wrote:

Looks like this broke building on windows with clang-cl as host compiler in some situations: http://45.33.8.238/win/8160/step_4.txt

Thank you for the reviews!

Lint: Pre-merge checks

Rebase

Rebase

Rebase

Thank you for the review!

Thank you for the review!

Such changes can be risky.

Since is_trivially_constructible<T>::type doesn't exist, wouldn't this always be a substitution failure?

Rebase to origin/master.

Undo overzealous re-clang-formatting.

Attempt to remove files that should have been ignored.

"How did this ever work?" Since is_trivially_constructible<T>::type doesn't exist, wouldn't this always be a substitution failure?

arc is not cooperating; I'm going to delete this and create a new review. Sorry for the noise.

Attempt to remove files which shouldn't be in here.

Hm, thank you, arc, for including files that were not in my commit...

Fix regressions and add vector test.

Hi, thank you for looking at this!

Thank you for the reviews, and I'm sorry I dropped off the face of the earth here! I was messing with my phab settings and I think I somehow disabled all emails. Oops.