t-tye added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/Builtins.def:792-799 +ATOMIC_BUILTIN(__hip_atomic_compare_exchange_strong, "v.", "t") +ATOMIC_BUILTIN(__hip_atomic_exchange, "v.", "t") +ATOMIC_BUILTIN(__hip_atomic_fetch_add, "v.", "t") +ATOMIC_BUILTIN(__hip_atomic_fetch_and, "v.", "t") +ATOMIC_BUILTIN(__hip_atomic_fetch_or, "v.", "t") +ATOMIC_BUILTIN(__hip_atomic_fetch_xor, "v.", "t") +ATOMIC_BUILTIN(__hip_atomic_fetch_min, "v.", "t") ---------------- t-tye wrote: > Should HIP also consider adding a __hip_atomic_load and __hip_atomic_store? What is being done for the memory fences? Does HIP have any interest in adding a memory order? ================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:9161-9179 + case SyncScope::HIPSingleThread: + Name = "singlethread"; + break; + case SyncScope::HIPWavefront: + case SyncScope::OpenCLSubGroup: + Name = "wavefront"; + break; ---------------- t-tye wrote: > The HIP memory model uses a single happens-before relation for all address > spaces which is different to OpenCL. So these need to use the "*-one-as" > names. > > Before committing this we should decide if we want to implement the OpenCL > address space fence support using the syncScope, in which case we may want to > adjust this name before we start using it. Actually the other way round, OpenCL should be using the "*-one-as" names except for the seq_cst memory ordering which is all address spaces. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87858/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87858 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
