svenvh added a comment. Apologies for the delayed response.
In D106343#2967089 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106343#2967089>, @haonanya wrote: > Hi, svenvh. > Should we use cl_khr_int64_base_atomics and cl_khr_int64_extended_atomics to > guard the functions using atomic_double type? > Thanks very much. > > #if defined(__opencl_c_ext_fp64_local_atomic_min_max) > double __ovld atomic_fetch_min(volatile __local atomic_double *object, > double operand); > #endif This is perhaps something to raise at the specification level? We can adjust the guards after any followup discussion if needed. To progress the support of this extension, I've just committed your patch (with some minor whitespace fixes). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106343/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106343 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
