yaxunl added a comment. In D114957#3166974 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114957#3166974>, @foad wrote:
> 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? Let's discuss with the users and see whether the macro is needed or not. 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
