frasercrmck wrote: > > CC @rjodinchr. I realise now that this idea may prove problematic for > > `clspv`/`clspv64` targets. If this idea were to taken further, things like > > OpenCL `minmag` would call `__clc_minmag` which would call `__clc_fabs` > > (e.g.), but I notice `fabs` is not implemented in `clspv*` libclc and it's > > left as external declarations. What exactly is happening with clspv libclc > > builtins? Same question for conversions, etc. > > `clspv` has a native support for `fabs`, it does not need libclc to define > that function. But as I understand that change, maybe `clspv` will need to > add alias for some `__clc_<something>`, but it should not be a big issue I > believe.
Thanks for the quick reply! It makes sense why you don't need certain symbols. Glad to hear you don't think it'll be a problem. I'm still not sure how I feel about going from OpenCL to the CLC layer then "back" to OpenCL again, though. I wonder if a system of macros would help obscure this somehow (`#define __clc_fabs fabs` for clspv). I can't say I'm jumping at the chance to introduce more preprocessor logic though. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109985 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
