erichkeane wrote: > I think we're more or less on the same page. I'm all for making docs useful, > and view "docs are spotty as-is" to be an argument for doing a better job. > > > Clang CUDA implementation is far enough from compatible with the NVIDIA > > CUDA that the CUDA programing manual > > We're largely compatible semantically, but not in the detail of the > implementation. While some implementation differences are observable, most of > the existing CUDA code compiles and works with both NVCC and Clang with > little or no changes. CUDA programming manual is still _the_ reference > manual, even if it could benefit from a chapter on portability across NVCC > and Clang. > > > So a short-description + link WOULD be fine, but the 'established > > nomenclature' doesn't help the above particularly well. > > "established nomenclature" may not have been the best term for me to use. > What I meant is not just "we've been calling them that way forever" but that > CUDA attributes are actually part of the CUDA language extension (extras on > top of C++). Those attributes are closer to a keyword than an attribute, as > they have much more influence on what compiler does with the code. That often > makes it rather hard to concisely explain the purpose. E.g. explaining C++'s > `virtual` in two lines may be a bit of a challenge, unless the reader is > familiar with OOP/classes and inheritance. CUDA's attributes are roughly in > the same ballpark -- hard to explain them unless the reader is familiar with > how CUDA works, and, in this case, with additional nuances of the recent GPUs. > > So a short description + link to the docs looks like a reasonable compromise > suitable for giving a rough idea at a glance, and for providing a direct > pointer to the gory details, if needed. > > > My problem with how it reads now: to someone with no CUDA knowledge, this > > reads as if a Markov model went haywire, and just uses a bunch of words > > that don't really mean anything (again, unless you already KNOW CUDA, at > > which point: why are you needing this doc?). > > That may indeed be the case. The verbatim wording should be reasonably > meaningful for everyone.
Sounds like we are roughly on the same page then. Give it another shot if you could (plus make sure the other things are done, I think the declspec spellings aren't done yet?), and I'll take another look on Monday. Hoepfully this is close enough at that point I can make specific suggestions on changes (or have none!). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/156686 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
