similar to: Generating C headers from LLVM

Hi Peter, I inlined some comments below but it might also interest you that we plan to have a GSoC student work on something quite related [1]. I hope in the process we'll develop the functionality you are looking for as part of what we want to do. I know other people looked into your problem before* but I haven't seen anybody that trying to upstream the functionality yet. * I could look

Hi James, This is very good feedback. 1. Adding the new calling conventions - It seems like the appropriate thing to do vs. metadata. Some OpenCL backends can choose to implement this calling convention and use it during code generation of OpenCL functions/kernels. Can we agree on this item? 2. Restricting the allowable instructions - As Micah mentioned before, the restrictions are there

Hi Boaz, Micah, Thanks for the followup. > I agree with Micah that optimizing a SPIR module might make it less portable. > However, SPIR doesn't prohibit optimizations. It is up to the OpenCL optimizer to decide when to "materialize" SPIR to a device specific LLVM module or even convert it to another IR. > It would be useful if we could identify areas in the specification

Hi James, some additional comments regarding some of your questions: Q: Is SPIR meant to be storage-only, or to allow optimizations to be done? I agree with Micah that optimizing a SPIR module might make it less portable. However, SPIR doesn't prohibit optimizations. It is up to the OpenCL optimizer to decide when to "materialize" SPIR to a device specific LLVM module or even

I am already successfully generating SPIR-V with a forward port of Khronos’ SPIR-V LLVM. What does one need in order to generate SPIR? From what I gather it is based on a specific LLVM IR version (3.4?) with a bunch of metadata. Is it possible to generate SPIR from LLVM trunk? If so how? Thanks Nic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Boaz, David, Thanks for taking my responses on board. > 1. Adding the new calling conventions - It seems like the appropriate thing to do vs. metadata. Some OpenCL backends can choose to implement this calling convention and use it during code generation of OpenCL functions/kernels. Can we agree on this item? Hmm, this is the one I was most shaky on. I still don't fully understand

Totally agree Philip! I think the main pending issue is are we allowed to have a target that doesn't go through the normal mechanisms that targets adhere to - and is basically just a ModulePass underneath. In light of how thorny this request has been perceived in the past, I'd honestly rather just make external targets work _without_ patching LLVM being a requirement, and then any

On 5/3/2017 12:04 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev wrote: > On 05/03/2017 11:19 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote: >>> Right, what I was trying to say is that there are more benefits from >>> having this not be a target than there is from having it be a target. >> Please enumerate them, I have seen none posted so far . The implied “it is what all the the other backends do” w.r.t

Hi, all. Swift uses a non-standard calling convention on its supported platforms. Implementing this calling convention requires support from LLVM and (to a lesser degree) Clang. If necessary, we’re willing to keep that support in “private” branches of LLVM and Clang, but we feel it would be better to introduce it in trunk, both to (1) minimize the differences between our branches and trunk and

Here is the revised proposal for the LLVM/SPIR-V converter. Please comment. Thanks. Proposal of Adding SPIRV Target Background SPIR-V is a portable binary format for OpenCL kernels and GLSL shaders. A typical use case of SPIR-V is as follows: 1. An application developer uses Clang to compile an OpenCL kernel source code to a SPIR-V binary which is common for all OpenCL platforms. 2.

From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:55 PM To: Ouriel, Boaz Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Ouriel, Boaz <boaz.ouriel at intel.com<mailto:boaz.ouriel at intel.com>> wrote: Hey

Hi Mehdi, Thank you for your comments. My comments are below. Sam From: Mehdi Amini [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:43 PM To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam) Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [RFC] Proposal for Adding SPIRV Target Hi Liu, Thanks for the detailed proposal. On Jun 17, 2015, at 5:44 AM, Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at

Hi All, In continuation of the previous SPIR introduction email here is a link to the specification: http://www.khronos.org/registry/cl/specs/spir_spec-1.0-provisional.pdf The first topic which we would like to discuss is "SPIR portability". I will send soon an additional mail which will help in leading the discussion on this topic. Thanks and happy reading, Boaz -----Original

Hey All, This is a very big topic in SPIR and probably a very controversial one as well. It includes dealing with 32 vs. 64 bit architectures and OpenCL "C" endianness. We have written down some of the aspects, but of course did not cover everything - let's start a discussion on the portability and see where it takes us. I suggest we start with the 32 vs. 64 bits discussion and then

> On May 16, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at amd.com> wrote: > > I am thinking maybe the functionality of the bi-way conversion can be kept at llvm/lib/Bitcode/SPIRV, which will facilitate OpenCL vendors to do conversions between LLVM and SPIR-V. On the other hand, we create a llvm/Target/SPIR-V, which uses llvm/lib/Bitcode/SPIRV to generate SPIR-V. The SPIR-V

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:50 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Richard Smith; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> >

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of James Molloy > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:49 AM > To: Ouriel, Boaz > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] SPIR provisional specifciation is now available > in the Khronos website > > Hi Boaz, >

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2015, at 9:31 AM, Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at amd.com> wrote: > > > > *From:* Mehdi Amini [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com <mehdi.amini at apple.com>] > > *Sent:* Thursday, June 18, 2015 11:24 AM > *To:* Liu, Yaxun (Sam) > *Cc:* llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu

Hi Boaz, I have a couple of specific questions: (a) You mention special calling conventions and adding them to LLVM. What are their semantics? And what is their purpose? (b) Why disallow type conversion for vector types? (ss. 3.3) Cheers, James On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 12:56 +0100, Ouriel, Boaz wrote: > Hi All, > > In continuation of the previous SPIR introduction email here is a link

Khronos Group SPIR WG is working on a bi-way converter between LLVM bitcode and SPIR-V (https://www.khronos.org/registry/spir-v/specs/1.0/SPIRV.pdf ) binary and is willing to upstream it to the LLVM project. The bi-way converter uses a common in-memory representation of SPIR-V. It works by breaking down a module to instructions and construct the translated module in memory then output it.