On Jun 21, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2012, at 4:15 AM, Anton Lokhmotov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tanya,
>>
>>> In OpenCL inline calls without a specified storage class should have
>>> internal linkage. The attached patch makes this modification and adds a
>>> test case.
>>
>> If this is OpenCL 1.2 specific, it should be guarded on a new language
>> option OpenCL_1_2 [1].
>>
>
> A "recent" change in Clang caused functions that are not marked with extern
> inline to only include the definition for inlining. This was to adhere more
> closely to the C99 standard (as far as I know). This also changed the
> behavior for OpenCL which is a problem for us. When you have a kernel that
> uses some function that is marked "inline" and doesn't get inlined because
> its too large, the function body no longer exists. I would imagine that other
> OpenCL framework implementors would also be upset at this change as well.
>
> After discussing offline, it would be better if OpenCL followed C++ semantics
> here instead of C99 and my patch should be modified. But this is technically
> not in the spec.
Will someone be taking this to the OpenCL committee? A general agreement among
implementors is good, but the OpenCL specification needs to codify the
semantics of 'inline'.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
