Hello to everybody, On 08/08/2013 12:10 PM, David Tweed wrote: > Hi, > > rom what I recall it was felt that even though these types are precisely > defined in the OpenCL standard (unlike normal C) it was better that each > OpenCL implementation should set them within its own subtarget at the same > time it sets the data layout string (so they're definitely known to be > consistent). Since doing this was code consolidation rather than new > functionality we've gone with the consensus and abandoned the patch. (If > consensus were to change I wouldn't object to a version without the address > spaces going into clang.)
I am confused by this choice to delegate targets to defines OpenCL builtin type size/alignment. In OpenCL 'int => signed i32', 'long => signed i64' and so on whatever the target is. Why these *target independent* properties should be set by *each* OpenCL implementation? I don't agree with this: the TargetInfo derived classes, IMO, are not the right place where this aspect should be defined. Thanks in advance. Regards, -Michele _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
