Anastasia added a comment. In D89372#2332853 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D89372#2332853>, @jvesely wrote:
> `cl_khr_byte_addressable_stores` changes language semantics. without it, > pointer dereferences of types smaller than 32 bits are illegal. Ok, does it mean that we are missing to diagnose this in the frontend? Btw I do acknowledge that what you say makes sense but I don't think the documentation support that: https://www.khronos.org/registry/OpenCL/sdk/2.2/docs/man/html/cl_khr_byte_addressable_store.html Am I just looking in the wrong place? > Even if all clang targets support this the macro should still be defined for > backward compatibility. Ok, are you saying that all targets currently support this and we sould always define it? In this case I would be more happy if we move them into the internal header that we add implicitly anyway... > it would be useful if the commit message or the description of this revision > included a justification for each removed extension why it doesn't impact > language semantics with spec references. Yes, this is a good suggestion in principle and we should try our best. However I am not sure it is feasible for all of those, in particular this documentation doesn't contain anything: https://man.opencl.org/cl_khr_context_abort.html Are you suggesting to leave this out? However I don't see any evidence that this require either macro or pragma. I feel this is in rather incomplete state. So I don't feel we can accomodate for all of these. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D89372/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D89372 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
