Currently, PTX has its own calling conventions where they are split into kernel/device. The AMDIL backend requires very similar calling conventions and I was wondering if we could change the calling conventions from PTX_* to something more generic? Maybe just Kernel/Device? Or would it be preferable to add a new calling convention that is unique for each target, even though it duplicates functionality? Thanks, Micah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111213/8e565069/attachment.html>
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote:> Currently, PTX has its own calling conventions where they are split into > kernel/device. **** > > The AMDIL backend requires very similar calling conventions and I was > wondering if **** > > we could change the calling conventions from PTX_* to something more > generic?**** > > ** ** > > Maybe just Kernel/Device? Or would it be preferable to add a new calling > convention**** > > that is unique for each target, even though it duplicates functionality? >I don't see any reason why a generic calling convention would not work. We could do something like cl_device/cl_kernel. I hate to introduce OpenCL terms into a back-end where OpenCL is just one consumer, but it does map cleanly to the architecture model. Or perhaps something more generic like gpu_device/gpu_global.> **** > > ** ** > > Thanks,**** > > Micah**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >-- Thanks, Justin Holewinski -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111213/4940adce/attachment.html>
From: Justin Holewinski [mailto:justin.holewinski at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:48 AM To: Villmow, Micah Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com<mailto:Micah.Villmow at amd.com>> wrote: Currently, PTX has its own calling conventions where they are split into kernel/device. The AMDIL backend requires very similar calling conventions and I was wondering if we could change the calling conventions from PTX_* to something more generic? Maybe just Kernel/Device? Or would it be preferable to add a new calling convention that is unique for each target, even though it duplicates functionality? I don't see any reason why a generic calling convention would not work. We could do something like cl_device/cl_kernel. I hate to introduce OpenCL terms into a back-end where OpenCL is just one consumer, but it does map cleanly to the architecture model. Or perhaps something more generic like gpu_device/gpu_global. [Villmow, Micah] Yeah, but this should apply to more than just gpu's. For example, AMD's OpenCL CPU implementation could utilize the calling conventions, along with projects like ocelot that have the device-only vs host/device differentiation. Maybe just device/host is good enough? Thanks, Micah _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev -- Thanks, Justin Holewinski -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111213/d8ea7b5b/attachment.html>