[PATCH] D96860: [OpenCL] Add declarations with enum/typedef args

[Sven van Haastregt via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

svenvh added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/OpenCLBuiltins.td:932
+let MinVersion = CL20 in {
+  def : Builtin<"get_fence", [MemFenceFlags, PointerType<Void, GenericAS>]>;
+  def : Builtin<"get_fence", [MemFenceFlags, PointerType<ConstType<Void>, GenericAS>]>;
----------------
Anastasia wrote:
> Btw, I am guessing you are matching the behavior of `opencl-c.h`, but however it doesn't seem entirely conformant.
> 
> `cl_mem_fence_flags get_fence(gentype *ptr)`
> 
> So I guess we should have implemented these as other functions from `Table 22. Built-in Address Space Qualifier Functions` in clang? But since the void pointer is only used as a parameter and not return value I doubt this is customer visible. Should we add a comment or something?
> 
> 
> 
Yes, I'm matching  `opencl-c.h` here, as the "gentype argument to indicate any of the built-in data types supported by OpenCL C or a user defined type.  Since this cannot be captured" can't be expressed literally.  I can add the following comment if that makes sense?
```// The OpenCL 3.0 specification defines these with a "gentype" argument indicating any builtin
// type or user-defined type, which cannot be represented currently.  Hence we slightly diverge
// from this by providing only the following two overloads with a void pointer.
```


================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaOpenCL/fdeclare-opencl-builtins.cl:185
+#if !defined(NO_HEADER) && (defined(__OPENCL_CPP_VERSION__) || __OPENCL_C_VERSION__ >= 200)
+  sub_group_barrier(CLK_GLOBAL_MEM_FENCE, memory_scope_device);
+#endif
----------------
Anastasia wrote:
> Should `work_group_barrier` and fences also be added to the testing?
MemFenceFlags are already tested using `barrier()` on line 23, so not strictly needed.  I added this test to verify the combination of MemFenceFlags and extensions.  Do you think we're missing any tablegen functionality coverage that would require adding more builtins to the test (also taking into account the comment on lines 10-13)?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D96860/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D96860