[PATCH] D18328: [CUDA] Add option to mark most functions inside <complex> as host+device.
Justin Lebar via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon Mar 21 15:23:28 PDT 2016
jlebar added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Options.td:383-384
@@ -382,2 +382,4 @@
HelpText<"Enable device-side debug info generation. Disables ptxas optimizations.">;
+def cuda_allow_std_complex : Flag<["--"], "cuda-allow-std-complex">,
+ HelpText<"Allow CUDA device code to use definitions from <complex>, other than operator>> and operator<<.">;
def cuda_path_EQ : Joined<["--"], "cuda-path=">, Group<i_Group>,
> rnk wrote:
> > jlebar wrote:
> > > tra wrote:
> > > > rsmith wrote:
> > > > > I don't think it's reasonable to have something this hacky / arbitrary in the stable Clang driver interface.
> > > > What would be a better way to enable this 'feature'? I guess we could live with -Xclang -fcuda-allow-std-complex for now, but that does not seem to be particularly good way to give user control, either.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps we should have some sort of --cuda-enable-extension=foo option to control CUDA hacks.
> > > > I don't think it's reasonable to have something this hacky / arbitrary in the stable Clang driver interface.
> > >
> > > This is an important feature for a lot of projects, including tensorflow and eigen. No matter how we define the flag, I suspect people are going to use it en masse. (Most projects I've seen pass the equivalent flag to nvcc.) At the point that many or even most projects are relying on it, I'd suspect we'll have difficulty changing this flag, regardless of whether or not it is officially part of our stable API.
> > >
> > > There's also the issue of discoverability. nvcc actually gives a nice error message when you try to use std::complex -- it seems pretty unfriendly not to even list the relevant flag in clang --help.
> > >
> > > I don't feel particularly strongly about this, though -- I'm more concerned about getting something that works.
> > What if we had a catchall nvcc quirks mode flag similar to -fms-compatibility? We probably don't want a super fine grained LangOpt like this.
> An alternative wrt the flag is to enable it by default. This would be somewhat consistent with existing behavior, wherein we make most std math functions available without a special flag, even though they're not technically host-device. The main difference here is that there we're matching nvcc's default behavior, whereas here we're actually going further than nvcc -- nvcc by default doesn't let you touch std::complex from device code at all, and with a flag, you can touch its *constexpr* functions. Which is not actually very much.
> Nonetheless, since the user-visible effect is consistent with our approach of making std math stuff available, and since this shouldn't make us reject code nvcc accepts, I'd be more OK hiding the flag to turn it off.
> What if we had a catchall nvcc quirks mode flag similar to -fms-compatibility?
I think we midair'ed on this. See above comment about turning this flag on by default -- calling this "nvcc compat" wouldn't quite be right. We could certainly have a broader flag, but I'm not sure at the moment what else would reasonably go in with this one.
More information about the cfe-commits