ssahasra wrote: > I also assumed we'd like to reuse the AS for future exec sync cases, or even > for abstract HW resources (my first draft called the AS "HW_RESOURCE"). > > If we don't plan to do so and would rather add even more AS later if needed, > that is fine (and a better idea than reusing the AS, IMO).
So this implies that for any hardware resource that needs to be "addressed" from a high-level program, if that resource has a contiguous range of IDs built into hardware, then creating a new address space for it is the likely direction to take. Is that correct? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/195613 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
