Anastasia added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/OpenCLExtensions.def:113 OPENCL_OPTIONALCOREFEATURE(__opencl_c_atomic_order_seq_cst, false, 300, OCL_C_30) +OPENCL_OPTIONALCOREFEATURE(__opencl_c_atomic_scope_all_devices, false, 300, OCL_C_30) OPENCL_OPTIONALCOREFEATURE(__opencl_c_subgroups, false, 300, OCL_C_30) ---------------- svenvh wrote: > Anastasia wrote: > > azabaznov wrote: > > > This feature is header only. We had a lot of discussions on that and the > > > main idea was not to declare header only features/extensions in > > > `OpenCLExtensions.def` and use `-D__opencl_c_atomic_scope_all_devices=1` > > > instead, @Anastasia can comment on this. > > > > > > I personally would like to introduce new flag for OpenCL options in > > > `OpenCLExtensions.def` which will indicate that feature/extension is > > > header-only, and thus all of such options can be declared in > > > `OpenCLExtensions.def`: if flag is set to true it can be stripped out > > > from the parser. What do you think about this? > > Yes, I agree the idea is to align with C/C++ directions for scalability > > i.e. we should only add what is absolutely necessary to the compiler and > > implement the rest using libraries - just like regular C and C++. We won't > > be able to scale if we keep adding everything in the compiler. In fact, we > > already have a huge scalability issue with our builtin functions. If we > > look at modern C++ - more than 70% of features are not in the compiler at > > all. > > > > Would it be possible to do something like suggested here: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D91531#change-AKXhB4ko4nAO for > > `cl_khr_depth_images`? > > > > > I personally would like to introduce new flag for OpenCL options in > > > OpenCLExtensions.def which will indicate that feature/extension is > > > header-only, and thus all of such options can be declared in > > > OpenCLExtensions.def: if flag is set to true it can be stripped out from > > > the parser. What do you think about this? > > > > Hmm, I think the macros should either be declared in the headers or using a > > flag `-D`. I don't know why would adding them in `OpenCLExtensions.def` be > > beneficial if we can use conventional approaches? This allows avoiding the > > complexity and makes things more modular. If we look at the OpenCL vendor > > extensions for example - we probably don't want them all in one place? > > This feature is header only. > > Good catch! I have updated the patch to define the feature macro in the > header instead. Currently that definition is not optional, since we don't > have finalized the solution for handling this yet (though the __undef > proposal seems to be compatible with this change). > > > I personally would like to introduce new flag for OpenCL options in > > OpenCLExtensions.def which will indicate that feature/extension is > > header-only > > If we still need to add header-only features to OpenCLExtensions.def, then > they aren't really header-only anymore I'd argue (as @Anastasia pointed out > above). So I'm not sure we need it either, or perhaps I missed something. FYI we have already added extended subgroups extension macros for SPIR in `opencl-c-base.h` without the `__undef<...>` trick. ``` #if defined(__SPIR__) #define cl_khr_subgroup_extended_types 1 #define cl_khr_subgroup_non_uniform_vote 1 #define cl_khr_subgroup_ballot 1 #define cl_khr_subgroup_non_uniform_arithmetic 1 #define cl_khr_subgroup_shuffle 1 #define cl_khr_subgroup_shuffle_relative 1 #define cl_khr_subgroup_clustered_reduce 1 #endif // defined(__SPIR__) ``` But extra conditions can be added any time if we get the agreement on the route forward. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/opencl-c-base.h:44 +#if (__OPENCL_C_VERSION__ == 300) +#define __opencl_c_atomic_scope_all_devices 1 +#endif ---------------- I think we should at least add a `defined(__SPIR__)` check though? Otherwise it won't be correct for other targets using the same header. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D103241/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D103241 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
