Anastasia added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35000#807674, @echuraev wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35000#801132, @Anastasia wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35000#799705, @Anastasia wrote: > > > > > Btw, is there any reason to add testing specifically for half? Is there > > > anything specific to half in the implementation of this? > > > > > > Trying to understand the reason for this change though... > > > Sorry for a delay in response. No it is not any reason to add testing > specifically for half. We can also do the same tests for other data types. > Here we just check that it is no any qualifiers in metadata. Btw, if I read the spec then it feels like we should put the qualifiers of the pointee type instead: `CL_KERNEL_ARG_TYPE_VOLATILE` is returned if the argument is a pointer and the referenced type is declared with the `volatile` qualifier. For example, a kernel argument declared as `global int volatile *x` returns `CL_KERNEL_ARG_TYPE_VOLATILE` but a kernel argument declared as `global int *volatile x` does not. Similarly, `CL_KERNEL_ARG_TYPE_RESTRICT` or `CL_KERNEL_ARG_TYPE_CONST` is returned if the argument is a pointer and the referenced type is declared with the `restrict` or `const` qualifier. For example, a kernel argument declared as `global int const *x` returns `CL_KERNEL_ARG_TYPE_CONST` but a kernel argument declared as `global int *const x` does not. It seems that the function `foo` is attempting to test that too. Perhaps we could unify the testing and create all combinations of pointer and non pointer types which would have qualifier and not. I don't feel that we should test all possible types though... https://reviews.llvm.org/D35000 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
