haonanya added a comment.
In D106343#2967089 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106343#2967089>, @haonanya wrote: > Hi, svenvh. > Should we use cl_khr_int64_base_atomics and cl_khr_int64_extended_atomics to > guard the functions using atomic_double type? > Thanks very much. > > #if defined(__opencl_c_ext_fp64_local_atomic_min_max) > double __ovld atomic_fetch_min(volatile __local atomic_double *object, > double operand); > #endif Hi, svenvh and Anastasia. Do you have any comments for adding cl_khr_int64_base_atomics and cl_khr_int64_extended_atomics to guard atomic_double type? I'd appreciate it if you have time to answer it. And if there is no any comment, please commit the patch. Thanks very much. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106343/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106343 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
