Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "unorthogon".
Did you mean:
unorthodox
2010 Dec 20
6
[LLVMdev] Function-level metadata for OpenCL (was Re: OpenCL support)
...ention number, this can be the
default behaviour.
> I would be happy to see an OpenCL-specific patch that always marked
> non-kernel functions with internal linkage. Then you could
> distinguish the kernel/non-kernel case just by the linkage attribute.
> It might be a little unclean / unorthogonal, but I think it would be
> ok.
Some OpenCL implementations (including my own) may use runtime library
functions which live in a separate compilation unit. These would
need to be marked external but of course would not be kernel functions.
Nick Lewycky wrote:
> Being discardable is a desi...
2010 Dec 16
4
[LLVMdev] Function-level metadata for OpenCL (was Re: OpenCL support)
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 06:16:25PM -0000, Anton Lokhmotov wrote:
> Mike Gist wrote:
> > You could also consider placing all kernel functions in a 'kernel'
> > section, or adding a function attribute for kernels.
> Unlike in Clang, function attribute bit-fields in LLVM are pretty crowded
> (only couple of bits are unused?). Besides, we do not want to represent
>
2010 Dec 20
1
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Function-level metadata for OpenCL (was Re: OpenCL support)
...expect most implementations don't represent
the loop explicitly.
I would be happy to see an OpenCL-specific patch that always marked
non-kernel functions with internal linkage. Then you could
distinguish the kernel/non-kernel case just by the linkage attribute.
It might be a little unclean / unorthogonal, but I think it would be
ok.
(There are also other minor differences, e.g. the behaviour of a
function-scope-local-addr-space variable in a nested kernel is
implementation-defined. See the Notes in the functionQualifiers
reference.)
david
References
http://www.khronos.org/registry/cl/sdk/1.1...
2010 Dec 17
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Function-level metadata for OpenCL (was Re: OpenCL support)
On 16 December 2010 14:33, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 06:16:25PM -0000, Anton Lokhmotov wrote:
> > Mike Gist wrote:
> > > You could also consider placing all kernel functions in a 'kernel'
> > > section, or adding a function attribute for kernels.
> > Unlike in Clang, function attribute bit-fields in
2010 Dec 17
0
[LLVMdev] Function-level metadata for OpenCL (was Re: OpenCL support)
However we record the fact that a function is a kernel, the mechanism
should handle the case of a kernel calling another kernel.
Recall that a kernel called by another kernel behaves more like a
regular function. For example it doesn't have workspace iteration
automatically applied to it; rather it just adopts the work item of
the caller.
About using a calling convention to mark a function