yaxunl added a comment. In D156816#4551307 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156816#4551307>, @jhuber6 wrote:
> In D156816#4551299 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156816#4551299>, @arsenm wrote: > >> I don't really see the point of doing this. These introduce ambiguous >> terminology. The reason you need the attributes is basically for FFI to >> opencl code, so might as well make the specific meaning clearer with the >> opencl bit > > FFI isn't the reason you'd use these, it's for generic access to the actual > backend. E.g. an `addrspace(3)` global is local memory, if it's external it's > dynamic. Having these named is better than doing it via the numerical address > space. I'd like to use these in the C++ / OpenMP codes instead of the numeric > ones but I don't like needing to use `opencl` in the name. Similarly to how > we have the OpenCL atomics that should be usable outside of OpenCL. I agree these attributes are useful in other languages, but "global" and "local" may need a more generic name suitable for all offloading languages. To me, "device" can be a good alternative to "global". even "shared" seems clearer than "local". Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156816/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156816 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
