yaxunl added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/Headers/opencl-c.h:16020 +// The macro CLK_NULL_RESERVE_ID refers to an invalid reservation ID. +#define CLK_NULL_RESERVE_ID (__builtin_astype((void *)0, reserve_id_t)) bool __ovld is_valid_reserve_id(reserve_id_t reserve_id); ---------------- Anastasia wrote: > yaxunl wrote: > > Anastasia wrote: > > > Looks good from my side. > > > > > > @yaxunl , since you originally committed this. Could you please verify > > > that changing from `SIZE_MAX` to `0` would be fine. > > > > > > Btw, we have a similar definition for `CLK_NULL_EVENT`. > > `__PIPE_RESERVE_ID_VALID_BIT` is implementation detail and not part of the > > spec. I would suggest to remove it from this header file. > > > > The spec only requires CLK_NULL_RESERVE_ID to be defined but does not > > define its value. Naturally a valid id starts from 0 and increases. I don't > > see significant advantage to change CLK_NULL_RESERVE_ID from __SIZE_MAX to > > 0. > > > > Is there any reason that this change is needed? > I don't see issues to commit things outside of spec as soon as they prefixed > properly with "__". But I agree it would be nice to see if it's any useful > and what the motivation is for having different implementation. For `__PIPE_RESERVE_ID_VALID_BIT`, it assumes that the implementation uses one specific bit of a reserve id to indicate that the reserve id is valid. Not all implementations assume that. Actually I am curious why that is needed too. https://reviews.llvm.org/D32896 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
