On 09/06/2013 12:54 PM, Mon Ping Wang wrote: > This patch looks fine to me.
If this patch seems generally fine, I would appreciate if someone can commit it for me, because I haven't commit access. Thanks in advance. Best Regards, -Michele > — Mon Ping > > On Aug 27, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Michele Scandale <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 08/24/2013 04:02 PM, Michele Scandale wrote: >>> The pure solution would be the one proposed by Eli: I don't have any >>> objection >>> to this solution. >>> The mangler now has a bug, so it must be fixed. The pure solution implicitly >>> breaks the binary compatibility. If we do not have problem with this (so we >>> consider a matter for the users to solve the problem, e.g. with a forced >>> update >>> of libraries) the right patch is to have a target independent mangling for >>> OpenCL. >>> >>> Still we would have problems if we consider SPIR: in its specification >>> there is >>> a fixed mangling scheme (that it's the one produced by the current >>> mangler). In >>> this case we have two choice: we change the SPIR mangling or we allow >>> targets to >>> override the target independent mangling for OpenCL with the one based on >>> the >>> TargetAddrSpaceMap. >>> >>> *Based on all this would see the mangling proposed by Eli the default >>> except for >>> targets that explicitly requires a mangling scheme based on the target >>> address >>> spaces map (e.g. the SPIR target).* >> >> In attachment a proposal to implement target independent mangling with the >> option for targets to force the use of target address space based mangling. >> >> Regards, >> -Michele >> <mangling-rev5.patch>_______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
