https://github.com/nhaehnle commented:
Couple of thoughts on this. If we are going to put barriers into their own named space, we should capitalize on it more than this change does. Splitting the address spaces but continuing to use the same bit encoding of pointers seems completely pointless to me. The HW does have a notion of a barrier address space of sorts. The IDs consumed by the various `s_barrier` instructions can be thought of addresses. We should make this new address space match this HW ID space. Couple of implications: * Don't call it "execsync". That sounds pretty generic, and we may not be able to re-use the address space for future sync uses. * Bit representation of the pointers should just use the HW IDs * This means that the null pointer value in this address space can be 0 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/195613 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
