rjmccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/SyncScope.h:92
+/// \brief Defines the synch scope ABI for OpenCL.
+class AtomicScopeOpenCLABI : public AtomicScopeABI {
+public:
----------------
yaxunl wrote:
> rjmccall wrote:
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you don't get to define the
> > "ABI for OpenCL" any more than I get to define the "ABI for C". You're
> > defining the ABI for your specific OpenCL implementation, but Clang might
> > reasonably support other implementations with their own ABIs. So this name
> > is inappropriate.
> >
> > Now, if I understand how SPIR works, SPIR does require some sort of stable
> > lowering of these atomic operations in order to ensure that the resulting
> > LLVM IR can be ingested into an arbitrary implementation. (Ot at least
> > that was true prior to SPIR V?) Therefore, SPIR needs to specify a
> > lowering for these atomic operations, and that probably includes ABI values
> > for specific sync-scopes. But the appropriate name for that would be the
> > "SPIR ABI", not the "OpenCL ABI". And, of course, you would need to be
> > sure that you're implementing the lowering that SPIR actually wants.
> The ABI is not intended for a specific OpenCL implementation, but for
> extending to other languages. For example, we have a downstream C++ based
> language called HCC, which may support atomic scope with an ABI different
> than OpenCL atomic scope ABI.
By "ABI" you mean that it might present a different model of synchronization
scopes to the source language? Okay, that's great, and it explains a lot of
things that were very murky about some of our previous conversations.
In that case, I think the appropriate design for these builtins is:
- They don't need to be in the __builtin_opencl namespace.
- They *do* need to be enabled only in language modes with well-defined
sync-scope models, which for now just means OpenCL.
- The language mode's sync-scope model should determine everything about the
scope argument, including its type. Sema-level validation requires first
determining the language's sync-scope model.
- There is no meaningful way to "default" the scope argument on the
non-scoped builtins the way that we are now. Instead, the scope argument
should only exist for the scoped builtins.
Alternatively, if you potentially want the opencl-model builtins to be usable
from non-opencl languages, the right design is for HCC to use its own set of
builtins with their own type-checking rules.
In either case, I don't think it's a good idea to call this "ABI", which is
associated too strongly with target-lowering concepts. You're really talking
about a source-language concept.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36580
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
