Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "required_wg_size".
2011 Dec 14
2
[LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions
...functions" for the reason
I discussed in the previous email. That is, in the pocl point of view we just
need a way to pick the "host-callable" kernel functions as they need the
special treatment before they can be called (like a C function).
BTW what about the other OpenCL data like required_wg_size which
affect the possible "kernel treatment" of pocl and can be converted to some
special instructions (I suppose) for the SIMT targets? Currently only the
TCE target in Clang adds metadata for the required_wg_size kernel
attribute (as we need it in "offline compilation") but IM...
2011 Dec 14
0
[LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions
...n
> I discussed in the previous email. That is, in the pocl point of view we
> just
> need a way to pick the "host-callable" kernel functions as they need the
> special treatment before they can be called (like a C function).
>
> BTW what about the other OpenCL data like required_wg_size which
> affect the possible "kernel treatment" of pocl and can be converted to some
> special instructions (I suppose) for the SIMT targets? Currently only the
> TCE target in Clang adds metadata for the required_wg_size kernel
> attribute (as we need it in "offline compi...
2011 Dec 14
1
[LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions
...ributes, do not make such a big
difference, in practical terms. Code generation can apply different
calling conventions based on metadata/attributes, and can also detect
the kernels based on calling conventions, so the options are
interchangeable.
>> BTW what about the other OpenCL data like required_wg_size
>> affect the possible "kernel treatment" of pocl and can be converted
>> to some special instructions (I suppose) for the SIMT targets?
>> Currently only the TCE target in Clang adds metadata for the
>> required_wg_size kernel attribute (as we need it in "of...
2011 Dec 14
0
[LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions
2011/12/14 Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi>
> Hi all,
>
> On 12/13/2011 10:50 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
> > You mean having no calling convention for device functions, and a new,
> common
> > calling convention for kernels?
>
> I think this might make sense.
>
To be clear, I do like the idea of using the default calling convention for
2011 Dec 14
2
[LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions
Hi all,
On 12/13/2011 10:50 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
> You mean having no calling convention for device functions, and a new, common
> calling convention for kernels?
I think this might make sense.
One major issue with OpenCL C (and I suppose CUDA) kernels some
fail to see is that the functions are "directly callable"
(just by choosing a correct the calling convention) in