ssahasra wrote: > 1. Existing users already have to manually call waits on tensorcnt, so > making this intrinsic participate in the asyncmark scheme won't break their > code and
Ok, now some things clicked in place about this confusing exchange of emails. I have been assuming that tensor operations are also covered automatically. If they are not, then there is no compatibility issue with "intrinsics already out there". > 2. The hardware isn't out yet - now is the time where a somewhat breaking > change like this is least unreasonable Well, that depends on what "out" means. We do have the chance to rename the existing intrinsic with `.async`, and possibly auto-upgrade old occurrences. Renaming the equivalent Clang builtin will break source code that exists "out there somewhere". Eventually, this builtin will get listed [here]( https://llvm.org/docs/AMDGPUAsyncOperations.html#memory-accesses), but we want to reach a point where we can simply say "all `.async` intrinsics". https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/200775 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
