aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td:1123
def OpenCLPrivateAddressSpace : TypeAttr {
- let Spellings = [Keyword<"__private">, Keyword<"private">];
+ let Spellings = [Keyword<"__private">, Keyword<"private">,
Clang<"opencl_private">];
let Documentation = [OpenCLAddressSpacePrivateDocs];
----------------
bader wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > This looks like we're adding two levels of namespace -- is there a reason
> > this should be `clang::opencl_private` as opposed to `opencl::private`? Is
> > there something clang-specific to these?
> > is there a reason this should be clang::opencl_private as opposed to
> > opencl::private?
>
> I'm okay with [[opencl::private]] as well. I have only one problem -
> currently OpenCL address spaces are exposed as keywords and using them in C++
> breaks valid C++ code.
>
> > Is there something clang-specific to these?
>
> I guess no (except that it's implemented in only Clang :-) ).
>
> @aaron.ballman, I already committed this version, sorry about that. I'll open
> another review with attribute renaming.
>> is there a reason this should be clang::opencl_private as opposed to
>> opencl::private?
> I'm okay with [[opencl::private]] as well. I have only one problem -
> currently OpenCL address spaces are exposed as keywords and using them in C++
> breaks valid C++ code.
I'm not certain who controls the OpenCL spec, but this seems like it should be
a decision that comes from there. Or is this functionality outside of the
OpenCL spec?
In attributes, when an identifier can be interpreted as a keyword it is
required to be interpreted as an identifier. We have the same issue with
`[[gnu::const]]`. See http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.attr.grammar#4.sentence-5
>> Is there something clang-specific to these?
> I guess no (except that it's implemented in only Clang :-) ).
I mostly mean: will other implementations of OpenCL want to have the same
functionality? Or is this something we expect other OpenCL implementations to
largely ignore?
> @aaron.ballman, I already committed this version, sorry about that. I'll open
> another review with attribute renaming.
The turnaround time between opening the review and closing it was pretty quick,
but you had a reasonable LG so it's no big deal. We can continue chatting about
it on this review until we decide that changes really are needed.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71005/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71005
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
