Anastasia added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:10006
"use of %select{type|declaration}0 %1 requires %2 support">;
+def ext_opencl_double_without_pragma : Extension<
+ "Clang permits use of type 'double' regardless pragma if 'cl_khr_fp64' is
supported">;
----------------
azabaznov wrote:
> Anastasia wrote:
> > azabaznov wrote:
> > > nit: this can be extended to use arbitrary type and extension for other
> > > patches which will eliminate pragmas for types
> > Well, actually I am not sure we should use it elsewhere because I don't
> > think it really applies universally.
> > The situation for `doubles` seems to be that the older specs were
> > intructing to use the pragma explicitly.
> >
> > For the future work we should just avoid adding or using pragma at all
> > unless it brings beneficial functionality.
> > Well, actually I am not sure we should use it elsewhere because I don't
> > think it really applies universally.
> > The situation for doubles seems to be that the older specs were intructing
> > to use the pragma explicitly.
>
> The same applies for atomic types, for example
> (https://www.khronos.org/registry/OpenCL/specs/3.0-unified/html/OpenCL_C.html#_footnoteref_55):
>
> //If the device address space is 64-bits, the data types atomic_intptr_t,
> atomic_uintptr_t, atomic_size_t and atomic_ptrdiff_t are supported if the
> cl_khr_int64_base_atomics and cl_khr_int64_extended_atomics **extensions are
> supported and have been enabled**.//
>
> It seems for me that simplifying the implementation in a way that enabling
> pragma is not necessary is fine if such warning is diagnosed for atomic types
> and half type as well. Alternatively, maybe the spec should be fixed by
> adding `__opencl_c_fp16` and etc. as optional core features?
Ok, this is a different issues in my view:
a. It doesn't explicitly mention the pragma although I assume it is implied.
b. It assumes the pragmas could load and unload the extensions but it has not
been implemented correctly. As a matter of fact I am removing the requirements
for the pragma on atomics completely in https://reviews.llvm.org/D100976
because I see no value in implementing it half way ending up in incorrect and
inconveninent functionality.
Double support is different to atomics because `double` is actually a reserved
identifier so disabling it actually works as expected.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100980/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100980
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
