foad added a comment. In D114957#3166948 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114957#3166948>, @b-sumner wrote:
> In D114957#3166936 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114957#3166936>, @foad wrote: > >> In D114957#3166858 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114957#3166858>, @yaxunl wrote: >> >>> In D114957#3166817 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114957#3166817>, @foad wrote: >>> >>>> This is a flag-day change to the signatures of the LLVM intrinsics and the >>>> OpenCL builtins. Is that OK? >>> >>> This breaks users' code. If we have to do this, at least let clang emit a >>> pre-defined macro e.g. `__amdgcn_bvh_use_vec3__`=1 so that users can make >>> their code work before and after the change. >> >> I don't know anything about OpenCL macros. Is it good enough to put this in >> `AMDGPUTargetInfo::getTargetDefines`: >> >> if (Opts.OpenCL) >> Builder.defineMacro("__amdgcn_bvh_use_vec3__"); >> >> Does it need tests, documentation, etc? > > But how long would that be carried? And then deprecated? Then do you think the patch is OK as-is? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114957/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114957 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
