Fix const array indexing inside gfor #3078
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Doesn't seem like |
umar456
approved these changes
Jan 22, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Indexing a const array inside GFOR produced results which aren't identical to results generated from indexing a non-const array.
Fixes: #3073
Changes to Users
Identical behavior when indexing const vs non-const array inside gfor.
Checklist
test_inverse_dense_openclseems to fail after this change, looking into it why, although the specific failing test seems to run fine if run via filter argument to the test program.[ ] Functions added to unified API[ ] Functions documented