Anastasia added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Frontend/InitPreprocessor.cpp:439
@@ +438,3 @@
+ if (LangOpts.OpenCLVersion >= 110)
+ Builder.defineMacro("CL_VERSION_1_1", "110");
+ if (LangOpts.OpenCLVersion >= 120)
----------------
yaxunl wrote:
> yaxunl wrote:
> > pxli168 wrote:
> > > These macros maybe need for all cl version, and in the header we should
> > > compare __OPENCL_C_VERSION__ with CL_VERSION_2_0 instead of the integer
> > > 200 in the header of http://reviews.llvm.org/D18369?
> > Each OpenCL version only defines some of these macros by spec.
> >
> > In the header file `__OPENCL_C_VERSION__` can compare with 200 since the
> > spec defines the integer value for `__OPENCL_C_VERSION__`. Comparing with
> > CL_VERSION_2_0 requires checking CL_VERSION_2_0 is available first. I think
> > probably I can define a macro
> >
> > #define _OPENCL20_AND_ABOVE defined(__OPENCL_C_VERSION__) and
> > defined(CL_VERSION_2_0) and __OPENCL_C_VERSION__ >= 200
> >
> > and then use this macro for conditioning 2.0 specific functions.
> should be
>
> #if defined(__OPENCL_C_VERSION__) && defined(CL_VERSION_2_0) &&
> __OPENCL_C_VERSION__ >= CL_VERSION_2_0
> #define _CL20_AND_ABOVE 1
> #endif
>
Where do you plan to add this code?
My point is that the code is a bit complicated and messy with this checks and
on the other hand it's kind of logical that compiler supporting all CL version
would also accept all CL_VERSION_X_Y macros irrespectively from the passed
-cl-std flag... I don't think spec is being that explicit on how CL2.0
compliant compiler should enable those macros when earlier versions of -cl-std
are being passed.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19071
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
