[PATCH] D95523: [OpenCL] Add cl_khr_subgroup_ballot to TableGen BIFs

[Sven van Haastregt via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

svenvh added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaOpenCL/fdeclare-opencl-builtins.cl:35
+// Enable extensions that are enabled in opencl-c-base.h.
+#if (defined(__OPENCL_CPP_VERSION__) || __OPENCL_C_VERSION__ >= 200)
+#define cl_khr_subgroup_ballot 1
----------------
Anastasia wrote:
> Not related to this patch - I think we should have included `opencl-c-base.h` by default when passing `-fdeclare-opencl-builtins` or do you see any issues with that?
> 
> 
That's something we probably want to do in the future indeed.


================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaOpenCL/fdeclare-opencl-builtins.cl:141
+kernel void extended_subgroup(global uint4 *out) {
+  out[0] = get_sub_group_eq_mask();
+#if __OPENCL_C_VERSION__ < CL_VERSION_2_0 && !defined(__OPENCL_CPP_VERSION__)
----------------
Anastasia wrote:
> I appreciate we haven't addressed the standard header testing holistically yet and this functionality was added in `opencl-c.h` without testing the functions, but would it be better to test each function at least here?
> 
> Even though the final goal should be testing all overloads, this is outside of the scope of this work that is closing the gap between `opencl-c.h` and this experimental function declaration mechanism.
> but would it be better to test each function at least here?

I think that defeats the purpose of this test.  This test is meant to test the basic functionality of `-fdeclare-opencl-builtins`.  It is not a completeness test.

A completeness test shouldn't be tied to `-fdeclare-opencl-builtins` alone; such a test should also be run against `opencl-c.h`, so this would be the wrong test to turn into a completeness test in my opinion.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D95523/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D95523