Anastasia added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/SPIR.h:59
+    // translation). This mapping is enabled when the language mode is HIP.
+    1, // cuda_device
+    // cuda_constant pointer can be casted to default/"flat" pointer, but in
----------------
linjamaki wrote:
> bader wrote:
> > keryell wrote:
> > > Anastasia wrote:
> > > > bader wrote:
> > > > > Anastasia wrote:
> > > > > > I am slightly confused as in the LLVM project those address spaces 
> > > > > > are for SPIR not SPIR-V though. It is however used outside of LLVM 
> > > > > > project by some tools like SPIRV-LLVM Translator as a path to 
> > > > > > SPIR-V, but it has only been done as a workaround since we had no 
> > > > > > SPIR-V support in the LLVM project yet. And if we are adding it 
> > > > > > let's do it clean to avoid/resolve any confusion.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think we need to keep both because some vendors do target/use 
> > > > > > SPIR but not SPIR-V.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So if you are interested in SPIR-V and not SPIR you should probably 
> > > > > > add a new target that will make things cleaner.
> > > > > > I think we need to keep both because some vendors do target/use 
> > > > > > SPIR but not SPIR-V.
> > > > > 
> > > > > @Anastasia, could you elaborate more on the difference between SPIR 
> > > > > and SPIR-V?
> > > > > I would like to understand what these terms mean in the context of 
> > > > > LLVM project.
> > > > Their conceptual differences are just that they are two different 
> > > > intermediate formats.
> > > > 
> > > > The important thing to highlight is that it is not impossible that some 
> > > > vendors use SPIR (without using SPIR-V) even despite the fact it has 
> > > > been discontinued by Khronos. 
> > > > 
> > > > Nobody has deprecated or discontinued SPIR in the LLVM project yet.
> > > > Their conceptual differences are just that they are two different 
> > > > intermediate formats.
> > > > 
> > > > The important thing to highlight is that it is not impossible that some 
> > > > vendors use SPIR (without using SPIR-V) even despite the fact it has 
> > > > been discontinued by Khronos. 
> > > > 
> > > > Nobody has deprecated or discontinued SPIR in the LLVM project yet.
> > > 
> > > All the official Xilinx OpenCL stack is based on legacy SPIR (encoded in 
> > > LLVM 6.x IR but this is another story) and I suspect this is the case for 
> > > other companies.
> > > So, do not deprecate or discontinue, please. :-)
> > > The important thing to highlight is that it is not impossible that some 
> > > vendors use SPIR (without using SPIR-V) even despite the fact it has been 
> > > discontinued by Khronos.
> > > Nobody has deprecated or discontinued SPIR in the LLVM project yet.
> > 
> > Strictly speaking `SPIR` is not defined as an intermediate language. 
> > Khronos defines `SPIR-1.2` and `SPIR-2.0` formats which are based on LLVM 
> > 3.2 and LLVM 3.4 version (https://www.khronos.org/spir/). There is no 
> > definition of SPIR format based on current version of LLVM IR. Another note 
> > is that metadata and intrinsics emitted for OpenCL with clang-14 doesn't 
> > follow neither `SPIR-1.2` nor `SPIR-2.0`.
> > 
> > I always think of LLVM IR as leaving thing that is subject to change by 
> > LLVM community, so tools working with LLVM IR must adjust to the particular 
> > version (e.g. release version like LLVM 13 or ToT). We apply this logic to 
> > SPIRV-LLVM-Translator tool and update it according to LLVM format changes 
> > (e.g. kernel argument information defined in Khronos spec must be named 
> > metadata whereas clang emits function metadata).
> > 
> > > I am slightly confused as in the LLVM project those address spaces are 
> > > for SPIR not SPIR-V though.
> > [skip]
> > > Their conceptual differences are just that they are two different 
> > > intermediate formats.
> > 
> > If this is the only difference, I don't think it a good idea to create 
> > another LLVM target to separate SPIR and SPIR-V. From my point of view it 
> > creates logic ambiguity and code duplication with no additional value. 
> > @Anastasia, what problems do you see if we continue treating LLVM IR with 
> > spir* target triple as LLVM IR representation of SPIR-V format?
> The state of SPIR 1.2/2.0 in Clang seems to be that the SPIR target has 
> transformed to mean “SPIR 1.2/2.0 derivative”, but that does not still make 
> it SPIR-V, which is not based on LLVM IR. When one is targeting spir* there 
> is ambiguity on whether one is aiming to produce the old-SPIR-derivative or 
> SPIR-V. Considering that there are still SPIR-derivative consumers, in my 
> opinion we should have separate LLVM targets for SPIR-V to have explicit 
> disambiguation of intent for producing the SPIR-derivative vs SPIR-V.
@bader, if you would like to migrate SPIR into SPIR-V properly then we should 
at least rename it. I would certainly prefer triple SPIR-V to SPIR which 
eliminates the need to explain what it actually is and especially considering 
that SPIR has existed as an alternative IR format for quite a while. It would 
at least make sense tpo eliminate the confusion.

However if you would like to go this route you should send a wider community 
messaging about it and then see if there are any objections. From my experience 
of previous conversations some years back there are tool developers using SPIR 
as a portable format even if it's LLVM release dependent however in practice it 
worked across the latest releases quite well. I would like to remind that not 
all vendors that support OpenCL or other accelerator API also support SPIR-V. 
There are also vendors that are migrating to SPIR-V but have older releases in 
maintenance that don't support SPIR-V. So my feeling is that SPIR has been and 
is still used as a portable format in tooling.

Regarding an extra triple/target, I don't see a lot of code duplication if we 
use inheritance/generic programming and other C++ features that will allow us 
to share the code effectively between both.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D108621/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D108621

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to