[LLVMdev] [RFC][PATCH][OPENCL] synchronization scopes redux

[Sameer Sahasrabuddhe]

On 1/14/2015 12:03 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Sameer Sahasrabuddhe 
> <sameer.sahasrabuddhe at amd.com <mailto:sameer.sahasrabuddhe at amd.com>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Ping! We need to close on whether everyone is convinced that
>     symbolic memory scopes have a significant advantage over opaque
>     numbers. Either of them will be examined by optimizations using a
>     target-implemented API. I personally don't think that readability
>     in the LLVM text format is worth the effort, especially given that
>     address spaces work well enough with opaque numbers.
>
>
> I am much more comfortable with symbolic memory scopes. The reason I 
> feel this way is actually because there *is* a particular ordering of 
> them that the target will mandate. Having an ordering but having it 
> *not* be the order of the numbers used seems too actively confusing to 
> me.

All that is true about address spaces too. On some platforms, address 
spaces could have a subset relationship, but it would be wrong to infer 
that from the numerical value. Isn't it enough to say that the number is 
opaque and should not be interpreted via any comparison?

I do see your ponit, though. But now the task got much bigger and will 
have to reexamine the time required. I suppose it starts with bitcode 
reader that can interpret existing bitcode files and translate the 
scopes to symbols instead.

Sameer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150114/9d48f02e/attachment.html>