rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28691#820489, @yaxunl wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28691#820466, @b-sumner wrote: > > > Can we drop the "opencl" part of the name and use something like > > __scoped_atomic_*? Also, it may not make sense to support non-constant > > scope here since we can't predict what other scopes may be added by other > > languages in the future. > > > we could use the approach of LangAS, i.e. we allow targets to map all > language specific scopes to target-specific scope names, since IR only cares > about scope names, which are target specific. And this is what the current > implementation does. > > I have no objection to use the __scoped_atomic_ name. It is more general and > extensible. John/Anastasia, any comments? Thanks. I think I would prefer __opencl_atomic_* until we have some evidence that this concept is more general than just OpenCL. https://reviews.llvm.org/D28691 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
