Anastasia added a comment.
> > >> I think what we are missing currently is a thorough analysis/comparison >> between SYCL device mode and OpenCL kernel language mode to understand >> what's the best implementation strategy. That would apply to many other >> features: kernel function restrictions, address spaces, vectors, special >> types, etc. > > That would make definitely sense when we target OpenCL. > >> I still see no point in polluting our code base with extra code that just >> does the same thing. It will save us a lot of time to just work >> cooperatively on the same problem and even improve readability of the code. >> But of course this can only be done if there is no need to diverge the >> implementation significantly. > > Yes. Probably that even when the target is not OpenCL, the general principles > remain similar. Probably the same for CUDA & OpenMP 5 too... In the interest of speeding up the upstreaming work, would you be able to highlight the differences and similarity at least for SYCL and OpenCL kernel modes? Not sure if you are familiar enough with both. Because apart from the public announcements I can't see what has been changed in SYCL that would disallow to use OpenCL mode. It would be a valuable input to determine the implementation choices. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60455/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60455 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
