[cfe-dev] OpenCL C

Renato Golin renato.golin at linaro.org
Tue Dec 17 14:45:52 PST 2013

On 17 December 2013 22:37, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi>wrote:

> That would be great, but unfortunately it costs money to
> get the conformance suite and probably comes with NDAs.
> Perhaps it will be possible to get the suite by some
> means, and install a private buildbot for it at some point.

If any company that already has the NDA signed could host this internally
and just report what's not working (even vaguely), it'd be awesome.

For now I think a way to proceed would be to create a
> table like the mentioned http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html
> for features described in the OpenCL 1.2 (and later 2.x)
> specs and start crossing out what is done. Perhaps
> refer to (sub)sections and even sentences in the
> specs that deal with the kernel language. I can
> start it when I get some time.

That'd would be great!

About the vagueness of the specs. We can forward those
> issues to Khronos and hopefully they'll correct it
> in the future specs releases. Until that we just
> interpret the vague spots as we see fit?

I won't pretend the C++ spec is not vague, or that we have a certified C++
suite (like PlumHall), but we have some alternatives and a massive body of
C++ code compiled with Clang as empirical data to rely on. There is nothing
like that for OpenCL.

But I wouldn't hold my breath for any change in the spec that has no
commercial backing. The Kronos group is not a community...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20131217/475fd0bc/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list