linjamaki marked an inline comment as done. linjamaki added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/SPIR.h:59 + // translation). This mapping is enabled when the language mode is HIP. + 1, // cuda_device + // cuda_constant pointer can be casted to default/"flat" pointer, but in ---------------- bader wrote: > keryell wrote: > > Anastasia wrote: > > > bader wrote: > > > > Anastasia wrote: > > > > > I am slightly confused as in the LLVM project those address spaces > > > > > are for SPIR not SPIR-V though. It is however used outside of LLVM > > > > > project by some tools like SPIRV-LLVM Translator as a path to SPIR-V, > > > > > but it has only been done as a workaround since we had no SPIR-V > > > > > support in the LLVM project yet. And if we are adding it let's do it > > > > > clean to avoid/resolve any confusion. > > > > > > > > > > I think we need to keep both because some vendors do target/use SPIR > > > > > but not SPIR-V. > > > > > > > > > > So if you are interested in SPIR-V and not SPIR you should probably > > > > > add a new target that will make things cleaner. > > > > > I think we need to keep both because some vendors do target/use SPIR > > > > > but not SPIR-V. > > > > > > > > @Anastasia, could you elaborate more on the difference between SPIR and > > > > SPIR-V? > > > > I would like to understand what these terms mean in the context of LLVM > > > > project. > > > Their conceptual differences are just that they are two different > > > intermediate formats. > > > > > > The important thing to highlight is that it is not impossible that some > > > vendors use SPIR (without using SPIR-V) even despite the fact it has been > > > discontinued by Khronos. > > > > > > Nobody has deprecated or discontinued SPIR in the LLVM project yet. > > > Their conceptual differences are just that they are two different > > > intermediate formats. > > > > > > The important thing to highlight is that it is not impossible that some > > > vendors use SPIR (without using SPIR-V) even despite the fact it has been > > > discontinued by Khronos. > > > > > > Nobody has deprecated or discontinued SPIR in the LLVM project yet. > > > > All the official Xilinx OpenCL stack is based on legacy SPIR (encoded in > > LLVM 6.x IR but this is another story) and I suspect this is the case for > > other companies. > > So, do not deprecate or discontinue, please. :-) > > The important thing to highlight is that it is not impossible that some > > vendors use SPIR (without using SPIR-V) even despite the fact it has been > > discontinued by Khronos. > > Nobody has deprecated or discontinued SPIR in the LLVM project yet. > > Strictly speaking `SPIR` is not defined as an intermediate language. Khronos > defines `SPIR-1.2` and `SPIR-2.0` formats which are based on LLVM 3.2 and > LLVM 3.4 version (https://www.khronos.org/spir/). There is no definition of > SPIR format based on current version of LLVM IR. Another note is that > metadata and intrinsics emitted for OpenCL with clang-14 doesn't follow > neither `SPIR-1.2` nor `SPIR-2.0`. > > I always think of LLVM IR as leaving thing that is subject to change by LLVM > community, so tools working with LLVM IR must adjust to the particular > version (e.g. release version like LLVM 13 or ToT). We apply this logic to > SPIRV-LLVM-Translator tool and update it according to LLVM format changes > (e.g. kernel argument information defined in Khronos spec must be named > metadata whereas clang emits function metadata). > > > I am slightly confused as in the LLVM project those address spaces are for > > SPIR not SPIR-V though. > [skip] > > Their conceptual differences are just that they are two different > > intermediate formats. > > If this is the only difference, I don't think it a good idea to create > another LLVM target to separate SPIR and SPIR-V. From my point of view it > creates logic ambiguity and code duplication with no additional value. > @Anastasia, what problems do you see if we continue treating LLVM IR with > spir* target triple as LLVM IR representation of SPIR-V format? The state of SPIR 1.2/2.0 in Clang seems to be that the SPIR target has transformed to mean “SPIR 1.2/2.0 derivative”, but that does not still make it SPIR-V, which is not based on LLVM IR. When one is targeting spir* there is ambiguity on whether one is aiming to produce the old-SPIR-derivative or SPIR-V. Considering that there are still SPIR-derivative consumers, in my opinion we should have separate LLVM targets for SPIR-V to have explicit disambiguation of intent for producing the SPIR-derivative vs SPIR-V. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108621/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108621 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
