[PATCH] D71460: [OpenCL] Fix support for cl_khr_mipmap_image_writes

[Alexey Sotkin via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

AlexeySotkin marked 2 inline comments as done.
AlexeySotkin added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/opencl-c.h:14686
+#if defined(cl_khr_mipmap_image_writes)
+#pragma OPENCL EXTENSION cl_khr_mipmap_image_writes : begin
 void __ovld write_imagef(write_only image1d_t image, int coord, int lod, float4 color);
----------------
Anastasia wrote:
> AlexeySotkin wrote:
> > Anastasia wrote:
> > > Do we actually need pragma for this extension? I.e. does it need to activate any special mode in the compiler?
> > I'm not aware of any special mode required for this extension. These begin/end pragma lines were added to disable the extension by default as it is [[ https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenCL-Docs/blob/master/ext/introduction.asciidoc#compiler-directives-for-optional-extensions | required ]] by the OpenCL extension spec. Is there any other mechanism which should be used for this purpose?
> > Probably, we should do the same for `cl_khr_mipmap_image`(and maybe others?), because with the current compiler, built-ins from this extension can be compiled successfully even if `#pragma OPENCL EXTENSION cl_khr_mipmap_image : disable` is specified. See https://godbolt.org/z/fNEWuG
> What I am saying is that `pragma` is only typically used to activate some special mode in the compiler. If we don't need to activate anything perhaps we don't need to add `pragma` at all? It simplifies compiler and application code too. Would regular include mechanisms be enough to guard the availability of those functions?
> 
> Maybe this thread will help to understand the topic better: https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenCL-Docs/issues/82
I think you are right. I have removed the pragma.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D71460/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D71460