Anastasia added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/opencl-c-base.h:17-23 +#define cl_khr_subgroup_extended_types +#define cl_khr_subgroup_non_uniform_vote +#define cl_khr_subgroup_ballot +#define cl_khr_subgroup_non_uniform_arithmetic +#define cl_khr_subgroup_shuffle +#define cl_khr_subgroup_shuffle_relative +#define cl_khr_subgroup_clustered_reduce ---------------- PiotrFusik wrote: > Anastasia wrote: > > PiotrFusik wrote: > > > These are currently defined as "1": https://godbolt.org/z/MnoWeo > > > Is the change to blank intentional? > > > This should be tested. > > Thanks! I think the spec doesn't specify the values but only says that the > > macros are defined > > > > > Every extension which affects the OpenCL language semantics, syntax or > > > adds built-in functions tothe language must create a preprocessor > > > #define that matches the extension name string. This #define > > > would be available in the language if and only if the > > > extension is supported on a givenimplementation. > > > > However, I think it makes sense to set the value `1` to align with the > > other extensions that are added by clang. > > I think the spec doesn't specify the values but only says that the macros > > are defined > > Yes, confirmed with Ben: > > > I don’t think we’ve said anything about the extension #defines, but for the > > OpenCL C 3.0 feature test macros we required that they are defined to a > > value for precisely this reason (#if used instead of #ifdef): > > > > In OpenCL C 3.0 or newer, feature macros must expand to the value 1 if > > > the feature macro is defined by the OpenCL C compiler. A feature macro > > > must not be defined if the feature is not supported by the OpenCL C > > > compiler. A feature macro may expand to a different value in the future, > > > but if this occurs the value of the feature macro must compare greater > > > than the prior value of the feature macro. > FYI, OpenCL 3.0 only determines the values for the feature macro but not the extension macro. Perhaps it's worth doing this for both? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92231/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92231 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
