yaxunl added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18369#385799, @Anastasia wrote:
> Regarding half types since there is inconsistency in both headers (commented > in CL1.2), should we just enable the extension cl_khr_fp16 in the header and > then have the overloads with half there with all the other types? They > shouldn't be visible to custom code unless the same extension is enabled in > the compiled cl file because half type itself won't be allowed without > enabling it. The 2.0 header uses #ifdef cl_khr_fp16 for half builtins, we could do the same for 1.2 headers. > What about OpenCL 1.1 header? Ideally it would be nice to have them in too! We can add it later after we done with 1.2 and 2.0 headers. > Is there any chance we could factor out the common bits into separate files > to avoid large code repetition? I would imagine it should be quite doable as > libs of each standard contain incremental changes. I saw some inconsistencies in the common part of the 1.2 and 2.0 headers. I will try to consolidate them first then try to split. > Do you plan integrating it into the Clang driver too by automatic inclusion > since it's not done with normal #include? Yes. http://reviews.llvm.org/D18369 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
