__simt__ added a comment.
In D74918#1897636 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74918#1897636>, @kristof.beyls
wrote:
> If these values are part of the C++ target platform ABI, it seems to me the
> values for std::hardware_{constructive,destructive}_interference_size should
> be set by whoever has the authority to decide C++ platform ABI for specific
> platforms.
> Assuming my thought in the previous sentence is correct; discussions on
> which values to chose for
> std::hardware_{constructive,destructive}_interference_size should happen in
> whichever forums decide C++ platform ABI for the various platforms? (Maybe
> for some platforms that forum might be clang-related fora like
> reviews.llvm.org, but probably not for all platforms).
> With my (probably limited) understanding of the requirements, it seems like
> deriving std::hardware_{constructive,destructive}_interference_size from
> actual cache line size on a specific micro-architecture doesn't seem to be
> the right approach?
They will be in the library ABI, meaning the libc++ ABI.
It's valid for libstdc++ and libc++ to have different values there. If we wish,
we could try for an alignment (no pun intended) on these values, but even then
that's just between these two libraries.
Which is good and encouraging, because I don't know what forum we would have to
go to.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D74918/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D74918
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
