On 19.01.2017 23:43, Liu, Yaxun (Sam) wrote:
I think the supported extensions for a target should be as accurate as possible, for it to be useful. Setting all extensions to be supported on all targets will defeat its purpose.
I agree on the first part, but arrive at the exact opposite result :) At least ARM, AARch64, PowerPC and MIPS suffer from this now (i.e. the ones someone even tried to compile pocl on). And OCL-C being a front-end option, and OpenCL a stand-alone library, there isn't too much backend target specific stuff going on.
I recommend to introduce "pocl" as an environment in the triple and add supported OpenCL extensions for different targets based on that.
This does sound like something we should consider. This would at the same time allow for development on the experimental backends.
-----Original Message----- From: Anastasia Stulova [mailto:anastasia.stul...@arm.com] Sent: Thursday, January 19,
Do you think this can be solved instead with the new " -cl-ext=" option:
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#opencl-specific-options
I'll have to have a better, second look at this, thanks. If it don't, I'll file bug reports :) thanks, kalle _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
