[cfe-dev] OpenCL C

[Renato Golin]

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...

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