================
@@ -766,8 +766,19 @@ static void EmitAtomicOp(CodeGenFunction &CGF, AtomicExpr
*Expr, Address Dest,
// LLVM atomic instructions always have synch scope. If clang atomic
// expression has no scope operand, use default LLVM synch scope.
if (!ScopeModel) {
+ llvm::SyncScope::ID SS;
+ if (CGF.getLangOpts().OpenCL)
+ // OpenCL approach is: "The functions that do not have memory_scope
+ // argument have the same semantics as the corresponding functions with
+ // the memory_scope argument set to memory_scope_device." See ref.:
+ //
https://registry.khronos.org/OpenCL/specs/3.0-unified/html/OpenCL_C.html#atomic-functions
+ SS = CGF.getTargetHooks().getLLVMSyncScopeID(CGF.getLangOpts(),
----------------
VyacheslavLevytskyy wrote:
May I ask you to add a test case to check specifically this line? That is to
check that coming from clang/OpenCL we get the `Device` memory scope when there
is no `synscope(...)`. We have llvm/test/CodeGen/SPIRV/atomicrmw.ll to check
SPIRV Backend default for no `syncscope`, but there is no test to cover the
OpenCL-specific default.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106429
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
