jhuber6 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:7362
+ if (FD->hasAttr<NVPTXKernelAttr>()) {
+ addNVVMMetadata(F, "kernel", 1);
+ }
----------------
tra wrote:
> How does AMDGPU track kernels? It may be a good opportunity to stop using
> metadata for this if we can use a better suited mechanism. E.g. a function
> attribute or a calling convention.
>
>
AMDGPU uses a calling convention, which is probably a better option. I don't
know how this still gets reduced in the back-end though.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp:4872
+ if (AL.getKind() == ParsedAttr::AT_NVPTXKernel)
+ D->addAttr(::new (S.Context) NVPTXKernelAttr(S.Context, AL));
+ else
----------------
tra wrote:
> I'm tempted to `addAttr(CUDAGlobal)` here, effectively making `nvptx_kernel`
> a target-specific alias for it, so we're guaranteed that they both are
> handled exactly the same everywhere.
> On the other hand, it all may be moot -- without CUDA compilation mode,
> `CUDAGlobal` handling will be different in this compilation mode.
>
> Can CUDAGlobal itself be allowed to be used as a target-specific attribute
> for NVPTX in C++ mode?
>
> I think, if possible, we should ideally have only one attribute doing the
> job, even if it may have somewhat different use cases in CUDA vs C++
> compilation modes.
>
>
Yeah that's what I was thinking. Right now we only parse and check all the CUDA
attributes in the CUDA language mode. I could change it to allow them whenever
we're compiling for the `NVPTX` architecture instead. I don't think for the
vast majority it would have any significant effect.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140226/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140226
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
