================ @@ -23,4 +23,20 @@ #define _CLC_DEF __attribute__((always_inline)) #endif +#if __OPENCL_C_VERSION__ == CL_VERSION_2_0 || \ + (__OPENCL_C_VERSION__ >= CL_VERSION_3_0 && \ + defined(__opencl_c_generic_address_space)) +#define _CLC_GENERIC_AS_SUPPORTED 1 +// Note that we hard-code the assumption that a non-distinct address space means +// that the target maps the generic address space to the private address space. +#ifdef __CLC_DISTINCT_GENERIC_ADDRSPACE__ +#define _CLC_DISTINCT_GENERIC_AS_SUPPORTED 1 +#else +#define _CLC_DISTINCT_GENERIC_AS_SUPPORTED 0 +#endif +#else ---------------- frasercrmck wrote:
> These macro names are too general for the implementation. I don't think this > works for anything other than the 0-is-private-and-generic case. Yes the assumption is very much currently that it's either fully distinct or 0-is-both. I didn't know how much effort to put into making it fully flexible given our list of targets is fairly static. I'd be open to making it more flexible. I don't think there's anything technically stopping a target having two or more of `constant`, `local` and `global` mangle to the same target address space, for example. Do we want something in libclc that can take care of all possibilities, or just the `generic` space with another? > What if you defined a qualifier macro with the value, and check if they are > equal Could you expand on this, sorry? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137183 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
