b-sumner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28691#820595, @rjmccall wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28691#820541, @b-sumner wrote: > > > There are other languages for heterogeneous compute that have scopes, > > although not exposed quite as explicitly as OpenCL. For example AMD's "HC" > > language. And any language making use of clang and targeting SPIR-V would > > likely use these builtins. I think a more generic prefix is appropriate, > > and "scoped" tells us exactly when these are needed. > > > But would those languages use the same language design for these scopes as > OpenCL if they did expose them, as opposed to some more elaborate scoping > specification? My objection is not that the concept is inherently > OpenCL-specific, it's that the presentation in the language might be > inherently OpenCL-specific, which makes staying in the opencl namespace is > prudent. Are you envisioning a language far enough from C/C++ that a standard library or header would not be able to map a scoped atomic operation into a call to one of these new builtins? Would we expect more of such languages than languages that would do such a mapping? https://reviews.llvm.org/D28691 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
