similar to: [OpenCL] Question about pre-linking passes required to build OpenCL program

I don't see any problem mangling it to be honest even though there seems to be only one prototype anyways. We could add restrict in as well. Cheers, Anastasia ________________________________ From: Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> Sent: 17 September 2016 05:32:54 To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam) Cc: cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev; Bader, Alexey (alexey.bader at intel.com); Anastasia

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Zhuravlyov, Konstantin <Konstantin.Zhuravlyov at amd.com> wrote: > > >Why not going with a metadata attachment directly and kill the "singlethread" keyword? Something like: > >Something like: > > cmpxchg i32* %addr, i32 42, i32 0 monotonic monotonic, 3, !memory.scope{!42} > > cmpxchg i32* %addr, i32 42, i32 0 monotonic

Hi, I have updated the review here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21723 As Sameer pointed out, the motivation is: In OpenCL 2.x, two atomic operations on the same atomic object need to have the same scope to prevent a data race. This derives from the definition of "inclusive scope" in OpenCL 2.x. Encoding OpenCL 2.x scope as metadata in LLVM IR would be a problem because there cannot be a

We believe that it would be best that this is added to the LLVM IR atomic memory instruction as fields on atomic instructions rather than using meta data. The reasoning is that this information is similar to other information that is represented as instruction fields. For example, the indication that memory operations are atomic rather than non-atomic, the memory ordering of atomics, and whether

+ Alexey Anastasia According to SPIR spec v1.2 s2.10.3 2.10.3 The printf function The printf function is supported, and is mangled according to its prototype as follows: int printf(constant char * restrict fmt, ... ) Note that the ellipsis formal argument (...) is mangled to argument type specifier z It seems printf should be mangled. Alexey/Anastasia, What do you think? Thanks. Sam From:

I will comment - as one of the few people actually working on llvm's atomic implementation with any regularity - that I am opposed to extending the instructions without a strong motivating case. I don't care anywhere near as much about metadata based schemes, but extending the instruction semantics imposes a much larger burden on the rest of the community. That burden has to be well

Hi all, On 02.05.2016 17:46, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev wrote: >> Why not going with a metadata attachment directly and kill the "singlethread" keyword? Something like: >> >Something like: >> > >> > cmpxchg i32* %addr, i32 42, i32 0 monotonic monotonic, 3, !memory.scope{!42} >> > cmpxchg i32* %addr, i32 42, i32 0 monotonic monotonic, 3,

Thanks, Marco! If there is enough interest in this topic we can also organize a separate round table for this discussion. Cheers, Anastasia ________________________________ From: Marco Antognini <Marco.Antognini at arm.com> Sent: 18 October 2019 14:42 To: Anastasia Stulova <Anastasia.Stulova at arm.com>; Simone Atzeni via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; clang developer

Hello, Since 2015 Khronos has switched to the new portable intermediate format SPIR-V, which has replaced the original SPIR. The advantage is that it offers higher portability across different toolchains. There was a talk about it at a Dev Meeting: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2017-03//2017/02/20/accepted-sessions.html#17 LLVM currently only supports SPIR format for OpenCL in Clang. Several Khronos

> SPIR-V does not have to be a part of LLVM for you to do this. You can add > the SPIR-V target to clang and then define a SPIR-V toolchain (i.e. clang/Driver/Toolchains) > that uses the external tool to translate LLVM IR to SPIR-V. Ok. I guess if Clang community accepts this way, it would be better to set up the SPIRV converter as a tool of LLVM. So the question is are there any

On 02/27/2018 05:07 AM, Anastasia Stulova wrote: >> SPIR-V does not have to be a part of LLVM for you to do this. You can add >> the SPIR-V target to clang and then define a SPIR-V toolchain (i.e. clang/Driver/Toolchains) >> that uses the external tool to translate LLVM IR to SPIR-V. > > > Ok. I guess if Clang community accepts this way, it would be better to set up

Hi Chris, The main benefit for LLVM to include SPIRV support directly is to increase the number of users and developers in the area of heterogeneous computing, e.g. GPUs, FPGAs, DSPs. We want to increase the number of such devices that LLVM natively supports by adding compilation to SPIRV due to the shortage of proprietary backends in upstream LLVM. Just to clarify we are currently suggesting

Thanks for your feedback Philip. Could you perhaps explain what the downsides to LLVM are of accepting this as a subproject as I can't really see any myself. Neil ________________________________ From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Sent: 06 March 2018 23:07:54 To: Anastasia Stulova; Chris

Dear all, I would like announce a round table planned for the upcoming LLVM Dev meeting next week that will cover various topics related to the use of LLVM in the compiler stacks for the GPUs. Here is the initial list of discussion topics: - Canonicalization vs. GPUs: Type mutation; - Control flow mutation (graphics shaders are more sensitive to this); - Divergence/reconvergence sensitivity;

On 27 Feb 2018, at 9:07 pm, Anastasia Stulova via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > SPIR-V does not have to be a part of LLVM for you to do this. You can add > the SPIR-V target to clang and then define a SPIR-V toolchain (i.e. clang/Driver/Toolchains) > that uses the external tool to translate LLVM IR to SPIR-V. Ok. I guess

On Feb 27, 2018, at 10:25 AM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 02/27/2018 05:07 AM, Anastasia Stulova wrote: >>> SPIR-V does not have to be a part of LLVM for you to do this. You can add >>> the SPIR-V target to clang and then define a SPIR-V toolchain (i.e. clang/Driver/Toolchains) >>> that uses the external tool to translate

Hey Anastasia, all, There's a long-standing CMake issue with the Debian packaging for Clang (LLVM works), described here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=862328 I've done some debugging and have a good idea of what should be done, I just don't know enough about Debian packaging details and testing to make much progress. I'd love to hack on this with

On 02/26/2018 09:25 AM, Anastasia Stulova wrote: > >> This is great to see. Is this code the basis of the forks that Anastasia > talked about or did those come from somewhere else? > > > Yes, indeed the base is https://github.com/KhronosGroup/SPIRV-LLVM/ and then there are multiple forks that include some rework as well (some of which were announced on the LLVM channels).

> This is great to see. Is this code the basis of the forks that Anastasia talked about or did those come from somewhere else? Yes, indeed the base is https://github.com/KhronosGroup/SPIRV-LLVM/ and then there are multiple forks that include some rework as well (some of which were announced on the LLVM channels). I think the biggest problems we are trying to solve is: 1. Keeping up to date

Hello, We have booked a couple of slots during EuroLLVM this year that we would like to dedicate to real hacking!!! Therefore, we would like to offer to the attendees this year an opportunity to escape from the presentation sessions and dive into fun coding to learn something new or to solve some interesting problems. The current proposal is to have 2 x 45 mins on Monday afternoon and 2 x 45