[PATCH] D20447: [OpenCL] Fixup extension list

[Anastasia Stulova via cfe-commits]

Anastasia added inline comments.

================
Comment at: test/SemaOpenCL/extension-version.cl:11
@@ +10,3 @@
+#endif
+#pragma OPENCL EXTENSION cl_clang_storage_class_specifiers: enable
+
----------------
jvesely wrote:
> Anastasia wrote:
> > jvesely wrote:
> > > Anastasia wrote:
> > > > Could you use standard diagnostic check please:
> > > >   expected-warning{{unknown OpenCL extension ...
> > > > 
> > > > Similarly to SemaOpenCL/extensions.cl
> > > not sure I follow, the test does not trigger any diagnostics (by design).
> > > are you saying that I should introduce negative checks to make sure extensions are not available outside of their respective context?
> > > Is there a way to filter verifier tags based on clang invocation? (something like FileCheck prefix)
> > Exactly, you should check that the extensions are enabled correctly based on CL versions.
> > 
> > For example if you compile this without passing -cl-std=CL1.2:
> >   #pragma OPENCL EXTENSION cl_khr_gl_msaa_sharing: enable
> > the following error is produced:
> >   unsupported OpenCL extension 'cl_khr_gl_msaa_sharing' - ignoring
> > 
> > You can condition error directives on CL version passed as it's done in the example test SemaOpenCL/extensions.cl.
> > 
> > So what is the original intension of this tests? Not sure I understand what you are trying to test.
> it's a positive test that checks that extensions are available (both that the define is present, and that #pragma passes without error).
> 
> I did not include negative tests (check that extension is not available outside of its respective context), because I think it's a bit overzealous reading of the specs.
> For example cl_khr_d3d10_sharing is first mentioned in OpenCL 1.1 specs, but the text of the extension says that it is written against OpenCL 1.0.48 spec. (I moved cl_khr_icd to 1.0 for the same reason). I think if a vendor can add vendor specific extensions to the list of supported extensions, it should be possible to add extensions from higher CL versions.
> 
> similarly, I would argue against warnings for extensions promoted to core features (or at least hide the warning behind -pedantic). they are listed in CL_DEVICE_EXTENSIONS for backwards compatibility so I'd say it is OK to allow pragmas in higher CLC versions for backward compatibility.
I agree with this:
  "similarly, I would argue against warnings for extensions promoted to core features (or at least hide the warning behind -pedantic). they are listed in CL_DEVICE_EXTENSIONS for backwards compatibility so I'd say it is OK to allow pragmas in higher CLC versions for backward compatibility."

@yaxunl, what's your opinion here?

Regarding the test, I think we should still check the diagnostics being given correctly especially for the extensions unavailable in the earlier versions. It should be quite straight forward to extend this test.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

http://reviews.llvm.org/D20447