-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 798
Support for arrays as kernel parameters. #1841
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Signed-off-by: rdeodhar <[email protected]>
Fznamznon
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Initial feedback for SemaSYCL, will take a look into tests and other parts later.
pvchupin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for ping. Few minor comments from me. @kbobrovs will review carefully.
elizabethandrews
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for the delay in review. The logic is a bit complicated and I was trying to understand this PR and #1764 properly.
I have not looked at tests or integration header generation yet but I had some questions in my first pass.
|
Also, I could not figure out how to leave a comment for VisitFields in this PR since this was added in #1764, but shouldn't the 'if statements' be 'if - else if' ? Otherwise won't accessors and samplers also enter VisitAccessorWrapper? |
|
@rdeodhar, thanks for the detailed doc! (especially int header and general kernel parameter generation) |
rbegam
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Except the minor query, the sycl section LGTM with all the corrections already suggested. For the clang part, @againull could you please review?
erichkeane
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This generally seems to be done in a 'hacky' way in quite a few places. In general, I think the quality of this implementation is fairly mediocre.
That said, it is isolated in a few places all in SemaSYCL, and we want to get the dependent patch in ASAP, so I guess this is good enough for me for now.
kbobrovs
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The doc looks good. Few comments on tests
|
Please resolve the latest conversations @rdeodhar |
Co-authored-by: kbobrovs <[email protected]>
kbobrovs
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
|
ClangFormat fail is a trailing white space in comment. |
[SYCL] This patch adds support for arrays as kernel parameters. Arrays within structs are not currently supported and will be supported when struct decomposition is implemented.
Signed-off-by: rdeodhar [email protected]