Anastasia added a comment. In D92004#2414692 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D92004#2414692>, @airlied wrote:
> In D92004#2413560 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D92004#2413560>, @Anastasia wrote: > >> Btw how about making some checks simpler. We could always define feature >> macros `__opencl_c_atomic_scope_device`, `__opencl_c_generic_address_space` >> for OpenCL 2.0 or C++ for OpenCL . Then everywhere we would only need to >> check feature macros instead of language versions and feature macros >> together. >> >> #if !(defined()) && (defined(__OPENCL_CPP_VERSION__) || >> (__OPENCL_C_VERSION__ == CL_VERSION_2_0)) >> #define __opencl_c_atomic_scope_device 1 >> #define __opencl_c_generic_address_space 1 >> ... >> #endif > > I like this idea but my only worry was about leaking those definitions to the > user source when the system hasn't defined them. > > i.e. a CL2.0 user now sees __opencl_c_generic_address_space, writes code to > use that macro, but it fails on other OpenCL C implementations. > > But if we are going to have feature code that works like that then I'm fine > with going ahead and changing things to look like this. Identifiers that start with a double underscore are reserved so there is no real harm in defining them for earlier OpenCL C versions. FYI there is this PR https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenCL-Docs/pull/477 where we intend to clarify that the earlier OpenCL C version might have the macro defined too. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92004/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92004 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
