Anastasia added a subscriber: svenvh.
Anastasia added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:743
+ // Assume compiling for FULL profile
+ Builder.defineMacro("__opencl_c_int64");
}
----------------
Btw we could add the other feature macros for earlier versions too but I guess
it makes code more complicated?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/opencl-c.h:17161
+#if (defined(__OPENCL_CPP_VERSION__) || __OPENCL_C_VERSION__ == 200)
+#undef __opencl_c_pipes
+#undef __opencl_c_generic_address_space
----------------
Looping in @svenvh - I don't mind if we define those macros in headers for
OpenCL 2.0. The only concern is that if we `undef` them here we will end up
with different behavior between `-finclude-default-header` and
`-fdeclare-opencl-builtins`. I would suggest not to `undef` them because it is
better if we have coherency. Alternatively we could also add a third header
with undefs that can be included at the end for both but it seems to make
things even more complicated.
FYI `__opencl_c_int64` is already added for all OpenCL versions.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaOpenCL/features.cl:19
+#ifdef PIPES
+ #ifndef __opencl_c_pipes
+ #pragma error "Macro __opencl_c_pipes should be defined"
----------------
I think we should test all the macros that are being added.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95776/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95776
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
