pxli168 added a comment. Then maybe I should hurry up to see if I can finish the Semacheck and this patch in time. By the way, I just got the access to the llvm svn, can I just commit the pipe type patch directly as I see you all accepted it. Or I should send it to the cfe-commit first?
================ Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGOpenCLRuntime.h:55 @@ -50,3 +54,3 @@ }; } ---------------- pekka.jaaskelainen wrote: > > Additionally how would definitions of builtin with user defined types > > appear in the BIF libraries? > > This is a good question. read_pipe should just work for any type of any size, > thus we cannot just generate a new function for all possible sizes in > advance, thus what Anastasia suggests here makes sense to me: > > > One approach would be to just generate calls that would always use generic > > types > > If now there was an additional parameter (always a constant) that stores the > type's size it would not help much as one would need to generate a big > switch...case that optimizes the access based on the packet size in case of a > software pipe or a compiler pass that looks into that argument and generates > (a call to) an optimized version? > > I think combining the Anastasia proposed generic read/write_pipe with the > metadata (that points to the packet's inner type or its size?) would be the > best solution (so far). Ok, I will send a patch in the best way so far. http://reviews.llvm.org/D15914 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
