b-sumner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28691#820526, @rjmccall wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28691#820489, @yaxunl wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28691#820466, @b-sumner wrote: > > > > > Can we drop the "opencl" part of the name and use something like > > > __scoped_atomic_*? Also, it may not make sense to support non-constant > > > scope here since we can't predict what other scopes may be added by other > > > languages in the future. > > > > > > we could use the approach of LangAS, i.e. we allow targets to map all > > language specific scopes to target-specific scope names, since IR only > > cares about scope names, which are target specific. And this is what the > > current implementation does. > > > > I have no objection to use the __scoped_atomic_ name. It is more general > > and extensible. John/Anastasia, any comments? Thanks. > > > I think I would prefer __opencl_atomic_* until we have some evidence that > this concept is more general than just OpenCL. There are other languages for heterogeneous compute that have scopes, although not exposed quite as explicitly as OpenCL. For example AMD's "HC" language. And any language making use of clang and targeting SPIR-V would likely use these builtins. I think a more generic prefix is appropriate, and "scoped" tells us exactly when these are needed. https://reviews.llvm.org/D28691 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
