svenvh accepted this revision. svenvh added inline comments. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================ Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenOpenCL/spir_version.cl:2 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -triple "spir-unknown-unknown" -emit-llvm -o - -cl-std=CL1.0 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-SPIR-CL10 // RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -triple "spir-unknown-unknown" -emit-llvm -o - -cl-std=CL1.2 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-SPIR-CL12 // RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -triple "spir-unknown-unknown" -emit-llvm -o - -cl-std=CL2.0 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-SPIR-CL20 ---------------- Anastasia wrote: > svenvh wrote: > > Would it be worth having an invocation without any `-cl-std=` and verifying > > that it produces the same version metadata as CL1.2? > From a unit test perspective, I personally think that it is sufficient to > test that the default version is CL1.2 separately and then test the expected > functionality of CL1.2 separately. Otherwise when we change the default > version later we will need to modify all the tests again. I don't see a value > in this. Agreed, and `clang/test/Preprocessor/predefined-macros.c` seems to do that already. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106504/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106504 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
