azabaznov added a comment. > Btw I am not suggesting removing the pragma. We will still have to parse it > for backward compatibility. I am only dropping the requirement of using it in > order to call get_kernel_max_sub_group_size_for_ndrange or > get_kernel_sub_group_count_for_ndrange when the extension is supported. > Because I don't see why this would be needed especially that all other > functions from subgroups can be called without the pragma > https://godbolt.org/z/MYavchPT3.
Oh! I didn't get that! I see another one https://godbolt.org/z/3GPW31W9c, https://godbolt.org/z/dYasedxjx. This is also fixed with your patch, right? > Btw the newer extension specs don't contain the pragma e.g. > https://www.khronos.org/registry/OpenCL/specs/3.0-unified/html/OpenCL_Ext.html#_extended_subgroup_functions Indeed... No wording about pragma even in OpenCL C 2.0... > Right now we have the following in the docs: > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/OpenCLSupport.html#implementation-guidelines > >> Note that some legacy extensions (published prior to OpenCL 3.0) still >> provide some non-conformant functionality for pragmas e.g. add diagnostics >> on the use of types or functions. This functionality is not guaranteed to >> remain in future releases. However, any future changes should not affect >> backward compatibility. > > This is not quite deprecation but it makes it clear that the behavior can > change as soon as backward compatibility is preserved. > > Would you like us to add or ammend anything? I think this fine for this change since the patch doesn't change anything but fixes a bug. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100984/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100984 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
