Anastasia added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:1804
+``__cl_clang_allow_unsafe_kernel_parameters``
+---------------------------------------------
----------------
How about `__cl_clang_unsafe_kernel_parameters` to match the other extension
naming scheme? Or we could use `__cl_clang_non_portable_kernel_parameters`,
`__cl_clang_non_portable_kernel_parameter_types` to be more specific regarding
the kind of safety that we allow to break?
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:1807
+
+With this extension it is possible to define kernel functions whose arguments
+do not follow the requirements using regular OpenCL extension pragma mechanism
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:1812
+
+This is not conformant behavior and it can only be used portably when the
+arguments don't get passed across the host/device boundary, or if the compilers
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:1813
+This is not conformant behavior and it can only be used portably when the
+arguments don't get passed across the host/device boundary, or if the compilers
+used for both host and device give the same layout.
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:1814
+arguments don't get passed across the host/device boundary, or if the compilers
+used for both host and device give the same layout.
+
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:1823
+ #pragma OPENCL EXTENSION __cl_clang_allow_unsafe_kernel_parameters : enable
+ non_pod_type b,
+ global non_standard_layout_type *c,
----------------
Let's add declarations of such types along in the example.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:8651
static OpenCLParamType getOpenCLKernelParameterType(Sema &S, QualType PT) {
+ if (PT->isDependentType())
+ return InvalidKernelParam;
----------------
I would rather add an assert for this because we should not ever reach this
function for the dependent types?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101168/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101168
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
