similar to: [LLVMdev] OpenCL SPIR code generation

Hi Ankur, Since you use -Xclang, the clang executable passes multiple triples to "clang -cc1". You can see that if you add the -v option. I'm sure there is someone here who can explain it better than I... Anyhow, I think you better use clang -cc1. Make sure -cc1 is the first command line option you use. $ clang -cc1 -fno-builtin -emit-llvm-bc -triple spir-unknown-unknown

Hi Guy, Thanks a lot for the clarification. I tried using the triple for SPIR as $ clang -x cl -fno-builtin -emit-llvm -c -Xclang -triple -Xclang spir-unknown-unknown Simple_Kernel.cl However I get the following error. error: unknown target triple 'spir-unknown-unknown', please use -triple or -arch I also tried with triple nvptx-unknown-unknown clang -x cl -fno-builtin -emit-llvm -S

Hello everyone, Thanks a lot for the help. -target nvptx worked great with llvm-3.2. However it gives error with -target spir. LLVM/Clang trunk although works good for both options ( probably because spir is still work in progress ). Thanks again. - Ankur On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Benyei, Guy <guy.benyei at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Jordan,**** > > You’re right, and

Hi Jordan, You're right, and the driver -target option works perfectly with the SPIR triples. Thanks Guy Benyei [email_signature_guy_new2] From: Jordan Rose [mailto:jordan_rose at apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 19:47 To: Benyei, Guy Cc: ankur deshwal; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] OpenCL SPIR/NVPTX code generation On Jan 23, 2013, at

On Jan 23, 2013, at 4:04 , "Benyei, Guy" <guy.benyei at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Ankur, > Since you use –Xclang, the clang executable passes multiple triples to “clang -cc1”. You can see that if you add the -v option. I’m sure there is someone here who can explain it better than I… > Anyhow, I think you better use clang -cc1. Make sure -cc1 is the first command line option

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Vikram Adve > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 3:52 PM > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] "SPIR" ? A Standard Portable IR for OpenCL > Kernel Language > > On Sep 6, 2012, at 4:33 PM, "Ouriel, Boaz"

Greetings All, I am sending this mail on behalf of the OpenCL Khronos members. **** Introduction **** Lately, Khronos has ratified a new provisional specification which is called SPIR. This specification standardizes an intermediate representation for the OpenCL kernel language. It is based on LLVM infrastructure and this is why I am sending this mail to the LLVM mailing list. Khronos members

On Sep 6, 2012, at 4:33 PM, "Ouriel, Boaz" <boaz.ouriel at intel.com> wrote: > **** Introduction **** > Lately, Khronos has ratified a new provisional specification which is called SPIR. > This specification standardizes an intermediate representation for the OpenCL kernel language. > It is based on LLVM infrastructure and this is why I am sending this mail to the

> -----Original Message----- > From: mankeyrabbit at gmail.com [mailto:mankeyrabbit at gmail.com] On Behalf > Of James Molloy > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:18 PM > To: Ouriel, Boaz > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; Villmow, Micah > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR provisional specification is now > available in the Khronos website >

Hi Micah, >> (a) You mention special calling conventions and adding them to LLVM. >> What are their semantics? And what is their purpose? > [Villmow, Micah] One purpose is to differentiate between kernel and device functions. > Another is to differentiate between the standard calling conventions that have > device specific assumptions built into them. Do you have an example

Hi All, In this thread we would like to review the built-ins and name mangling approach which we chose for SPIR. Specifically, I think a discussion on the atomics and memcpy should be interesting. *****OpenCL Built-ins Introduction****** OpenCL provides a huge set of utility functions (>6000 built-ins) which are available for the developers of OpenCL. These functions are called built-ins.

James, here are our updated answers after discussing this. > -----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

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

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Nadav Rotem > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:05 PM > To: Ouriel, Boaz > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion > > > > > > ****Pointers**** > > During

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Ouriel, Boaz <boaz.ouriel at intel.com>wrote: > 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

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

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *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:

Hi All, Here are answers to the questions / comments that were raised so far during the SPIR discussions. **** A general clarification regarding sizeof **** In SPIR, sizeof in an integer constant expression is illegal. The reason behind it is that once the device is no longer known, the width of the unsigned integer that represents the size_t type is no longer known. The C spec states in

Hi All, I would like to open up the discussion on the Host and Device Endianness section of the SPIR portability topic. Please read below section number 2 and send your comments. Thanks, Boaz -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Ouriel, Boaz Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 22:27 To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu;