[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

Anastasia added a comment. In D92004#2857511 , @airlied wrote: > I'll have to rebase/rebuild my build env, I'll try and have something > rebasing this cleaner soon. Cool, thanks! If you could split/partition into multiple patches in some way it would be

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

airlied added a comment. I'll have to rebase/rebuild my build env, I'll try and have something rebasing this cleaner soon. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92004/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92004 __

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

Anastasia added a comment. @airlied I think this patch is outdated as some features have been committed in the meantime. Are you still interested in working on this change? It might help splitting into smaller independent chunks. It is usually faster to review and test. Repository: rG LLVM

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

Anastasia added a comment. We have discussed testing of headers within OpenCL developer community and wider: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2021-April/068040.html and the conclusions I have drawn are as follows: - There seem to be no big interest in improving upstream testing of `ope

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

Anastasia added a comment. FYI the testing of headers functionality is now being discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D97869 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92004/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92004 ___

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

Anastasia added a comment. In D92004#2423441 , @svenvh wrote: >>> We probably don't want to hold up this patch until we have more thorough >>> testing in place, since we don't even have any concrete plans for such >>> testing at the moment. >> >> Well ac

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

svenvh added a comment. >> We probably don't want to hold up this patch until we have more thorough >> testing in place, since we don't even have any concrete plans for such >> testing at the moment. > > Well accepting such a significant change that implements the entire > functionality of a ne

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

Anastasia added a comment. In D92004#2420121 , @svenvh wrote: >> I am still unclear what should we do with testing though. > > We probably don't want to hold up this patch until we have more thorough > testing in place, since we don't even have any concre

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

svenvh added a comment. > I am still unclear what should we do with testing though. We probably don't want to hold up this patch until we have more thorough testing in place, since we don't even have any concrete plans for such testing at the moment. Perhaps we should just land the patch once

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

Anastasia added a comment. Thanks! This looks much cleaner. I am still unclear what should we do with testing though. Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/opencl-c-base.h:284 memory_scope_work_group = __OPENCL_MEMORY_SCOPE_WORK_GROUP, +#if defined(__OPENCL_CPP_VERSION__) || (__OPE

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

Anastasia added a comment. In D92004#2414692 , @airlied wrote: > In D92004#2413560 , @Anastasia wrote: > >> Btw how about making some checks simpler. We could always define feature >> macros `__opencl_c_atomic_scop

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

airlied added a comment. In D92004#2413560 , @Anastasia wrote: > Btw how about making some checks simpler. We could always define feature > macros `__opencl_c_atomic_scope_device`, `__opencl_c_generic_address_space` > for OpenCL 2.0 or C++ for OpenCL .

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

svenvh added a comment. In D92004#2413603 , @Anastasia wrote: > @svenvh I imagine the testing functionality between the two headers will be > identical? Mostly, assuming you intend to test in the conventional way of feeding a .cl file to Clang. Althoug

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

Anastasia added a subscriber: svenvh. Anastasia added a comment. > It will need some decent review and maybe some testing by other CL users to > make sure I've haven't messed up when used with a fully featured CL 3.0 stack. Clang functionality is expected to be tested in llvm-project and with Op

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

azabaznov added a comment. Hi! Great to see the interest in OpenCL C 3.0! I'm being working already at a proper feature macros definition to unify both clang and header OpenCL C 3.0 related changes, here is the change:  https://reviews.llvm.org/D89869. So as this patch will be merged then the ch

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

Anastasia added a comment. In D92004#2412953 , @airlied wrote: > this file has never been clang-format clean, happy to make changes if > reviewer decides they are needed. This has not been considered a conventional clang source so to say, so the coding

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

Anastasia added a subscriber: azabaznov. Anastasia added a comment. I assume your change depends on some other changes that add the feature macro definitions. So I think we should link the other changes in at some point. CCing to @azabaznov here who is working on the features too. Repository:

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

Anastasia added a comment. Btw how about making some checks simpler. We could always define feature macros `__opencl_c_atomic_scope_device`, `__opencl_c_generic_address_space` for OpenCL 2.0 or C++ for OpenCL . Then everywhere we would only need to check feature macros instead of language vers

[PATCH] D92004: [OpenCL] add CL 3.0 optional feature support to opencl-c.h

airlied added a comment. this file has never been clang-format clean, happy to make changes if reviewer decides they are needed. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92004/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92004