================
@@ -93,16 +73,6 @@
__SPIRV_BUILTIN_ALIAS(__builtin_spirv_generic_cast_to_ptr_explicit)
__private const void *
__spirv_GenericCastToPtrExplicit_ToPrivate(__generic const void *,
int) __SPIRV_NOEXCEPT;
-extern __SPIRV_overloadable
-__SPIRV_BUILTIN_ALIAS(__builtin_spirv_generic_cast_to_ptr_explicit)
-__private volatile void *
-__spirv_GenericCastToPtrExplicit_ToPrivate(__generic volatile void *,
- int) __SPIRV_NOEXCEPT;
-extern __SPIRV_overloadable
-__SPIRV_BUILTIN_ALIAS(__builtin_spirv_generic_cast_to_ptr_explicit)
-__private const volatile void *
-__spirv_GenericCastToPtrExplicit_ToPrivate(__generic const volatile void *,
- int) __SPIRV_NOEXCEPT;
----------------
wenju-he wrote:
> > In such case, any built-in that uses the pointer arg will have the same
> > issue,
>
> Not sure what you mean.
I mean the case that the input pointer to builtin is already volatile, e.g.
`test2` shown below. Suppose the pointer parameter of __spirv_ocl_vloadn_Rint2
isn't qualified with volatile.
Before this PR,
```
void test1(int *p) {
__spirv_GenericCastToPtrExplicit_ToPrivate(p); // const-cast not needed
__spirv_ocl_vloadn_Rint2(1, p); // const-cast not needed
}
void test2(volatile int *p) {
__spirv_GenericCastToPtrExplicit_ToPrivate(p); // const-cast not needed
__spirv_ocl_vloadn_Rint2(1, p); // const-cast needed
}
```
after this PR,
```
void test1(int *p) {
__spirv_GenericCastToPtrExplicit_ToPrivate(p); // const-cast not needed
__spirv_ocl_vloadn_Rint2(1, p); // const-cast not needed
}
void test2(volatile int *p) {
__spirv_GenericCastToPtrExplicit_ToPrivate(p); // const-cast needed <--
changed
__spirv_ocl_vloadn_Rint2(1, p); // const-cast needed
}
```
I mean after this PR __spirv_GenericCastToPtrExplicit_ToPrivate will behave the
same as other built-in that uses pointer argument regarding whether a
const-cast is needed. So the casting is a general issue.
If we keep volatile variant of __spirv_GenericCastToPtrExplicit_ToPrivate, does
it mean we'll add volatile overload for all built-ins that has pointer
parameter?
> Did you mean the returned value ?
> a cast on the return type will usually be required
Cast on return value is only need for const, but not needed for volatile,
right? I mean a non-volatile return value can be implicitly converted to a
volatile value.
> I don't have strong opinion
Me neither. It is just we probably need to find a correct way to handle the
builtin declarations.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146298
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
