Anastasia added inline comments.

================
Comment at: cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp:4229
+    LangAS AddrSpaceR =
+        RHSType->getAs<BlockPointerType>()->getPointeeType().getAddressSpace();
+    CastKind Kind =
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> Anastasia wrote:
> > rjmccall wrote:
> > > Anastasia wrote:
> > > > rjmccall wrote:
> > > > > All of this can be much simpler:
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > LangAS AddrSpaceL = 
> > > > > ToType->castAs<BlockPointerType>()->getPointeeType().getAddressSpace();
> > > > > LangAS AddrSpaceR = 
> > > > > FromType->castAs<BlockPointerType>()->getPointeeType().getAddressSpace();
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is there something actually checking the validity of this 
> > > > > address-space cast somewhere?
> > > > > Is there something actually checking the validity of this 
> > > > > address-space cast somewhere?
> > > > 
> > > > The address spaces for blocks are currently added by clang implicitly. 
> > > > It doesn't seem possible to write kernel code qualifying blocks with 
> > > > address spaces. Although I have to say the error is not given properly 
> > > > because the parser gets confused at least for the examples I have 
> > > > tried. The OpenCL spec doesn't detail much regarding this use case. 
> > > > Potentially this is the area for improvement.
> > > > 
> > > > So for now we can add an assert to check the cast validity if you think 
> > > > it makes sense and maybe a FIXME in the  code to explain that address 
> > > > spaces aren't working with blocks....
> > > > The address spaces for blocks are currently added by clang implicitly. 
> > > > It doesn't seem possible to write kernel code qualifying blocks with 
> > > > address spaces.
> > > 
> > > There's no way that just fell out from the existing implementation; it 
> > > was a change someone must have made for OpenCL.  Unless you care about 
> > > blocks existing in multiple address spaces — which, given that you depend 
> > > on eliminating them, I'm pretty sure you don't — the compiler just 
> > > shouldn't do that if it's causing you problems.
> > So the reasons why we add addr spaces to blocks is that if they are 
> > declared in program scope they will be inferred as `__global` AS and if 
> > they are declared in kernel scope they are inferred as `__private` AS.
> > 
> > When there is a common code i.e. we pass block into a function or invoke 
> > the block we use generic AS so that blocks in different addr spaces can be 
> > work correctly but we are adding addr space cast.
> > 
> > This is the review that added this logic for OpenCL C: 
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D28814
> > 
> > However in C++ we follow slightly different program path and therefore addr 
> > space cast isn't performed correctly.
> Okay, so users can't write block pointer types with explicit address spaces.  
> What exactly do you mean by "declaring" a block?  Do you mean that block 
> pointer *types* are inferred to have different qualification based on where 
> they're written, or do you mean that block *literals* have different 
> qualification based on where they're written?  Because I'm not sure the 
> latter is actually distinguishable from a language model in which blocks are 
> always pointers into `__generic` and the compiler just immediately promotes 
> them when emitting the expression.
We add `__generic` addr space to pointee type of block pointer type for all 
block variables. However, we don't do the same for block literals. Hence we 
need to generate conversion from `LangAS::Default` to 
`LangAS::opencl_generic`... I think this just aligns with what we do for other 
similar cases in OpenCL.

We also add `__global`/`__private` to block pointer type in block variable 
declarations, but we do the same for all other objects. At IR generation we 
generate block literals with captures as local variables in `__private` addr 
space and block literals without captures as global variables in `__global` 
addr space.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D64083/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D64083



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to