yaxunl added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51341#1301047, @sidorovd wrote:
> @Anastasia @yaxunl > Hi, I am working on generalizing this patch and several questions have > raised during this, so I want to discuss them with you: > > 1. Should #pragma OPENCL EXTENSION ext_name : begin enables the extension as > well? For now I see it's not, as an example: > > ``` #pragma OPENCL EXTENSION cl_khr_fp16 : enable half > __attribute__((overloadable)) goo(half in1, half in2); // all ok #pragma > OPENCL EXTENSION cl_khr_fp16 : disable > > #pragma OPENCL EXTENSION cl_khr_fp16 : begin half > __attribute__((overloadable)) goo(half in1, half in2); // declaring function > parameter of type 'half' is not allowed; did you forget * ? #pragma OPENCL > EXTENSION cl_khr_fp16 : end ``` #pragma OPENCL EXTENSION ext_name : begin should not enable the extension. There are cases that you want to declare functions and types associated with an extension but do not want to enable the extension. > 2. As far as I understand, when declaring an extension we shall have 1 > #pragma begin and 1 #pragma end. But here is a test called extension-begin > and in its header one can see this construction: > > ``` #pragma OPENCL EXTENSION all : begin #pragma OPENCL EXTENSION all : end > > #pragma OPENCL EXTENSION my_ext : begin ///some code #pragma OPENCL > EXTENSION my_ext : end #pragma OPENCL EXTENSION my_ext : end // why? } ``` so > here my_ext has double ending. And in this way the test passes, but if I > remove second ending (which is redundant from my perspective), I see > following diagnostics: " OpenCL extension end directive mismatches begin > directive - ignoring". Is it a bug or it's supposed to work that way? It seems to be a bug. https://reviews.llvm.org/D51341 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
