jhuber6 added a comment. In D156816#4551338 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156816#4551338>, @yaxunl wrote:
>> FFI isn't the reason you'd use these, it's for generic access to the actual >> backend. E.g. an `addrspace(3)` global is local memory, if it's external >> it's dynamic. Having these named is better than doing it via the numerical >> address space. I'd like to use these in the C++ / OpenMP codes instead of >> the numeric ones but I don't like needing to use `opencl` in the name. >> Similarly to how we have the OpenCL atomics that should be usable outside of >> OpenCL. > > I agree these attributes are useful in other languages, but "global" and > "local" may need a more generic name suitable for all offloading languages. > To me, "device" can be a good alternative to "global". even "shared" seems > clearer than "local". Global is common in https://llvm.org/docs/AMDGPUUsage.html#address-spaces and https://llvm.org/docs/NVPTXUsage.html#address-spaces. The main problem is `local` vs `shared` and `private` vs `local`. Unsure which one we should prefer in this case. Generally I feel a lot of this OpenCL stuff should've been named commonly at the start considering you can use most of them outside of the actual OpenCL language just fine. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156816/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156816 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
