-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
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
Update clUpdateMutableCommandsKHR to match new API #501
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Implementation change to prototype specification changes proposed in KhronosGroup/OpenCL-Docs#1041 Uses OpenCL changes from * KhronosGroup/OpenCL-Docs#1045 * KhronosGroup/OpenCL-Headers#245 * KhronosGroup/OpenCL-CTS#1984
0db99fe
to
a91f218
Compare
CTS changes to reflect the spec changes merged in KhronosGroup/OpenCL-Docs#1045 and requires header updates from KhronosGroup/OpenCL-Headers#245 Tested using OCK implementation from uxlfoundation/oneapi-construction-kit#501
32ede68
to
33ad6a6
Compare
CL_STRUCTURE_TYPE_MUTABLE_DISPATCH_CONFIG_KHR, | ||
nullptr, | ||
cl_mutable_dispatch_arg_khr args[] = {arg_0, arg_1, arg_2}; | ||
cl_mutable_dispatch_config_khr dispatch_config{ |
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.
With the clang-tidy
reports on the earlier version for variables that could be const
, I am surprised that none are raised here. Could you check whether this really needs to be non-const
, or whether the source file was skipped in the check?
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.
clang-tidy
was being run (I manually run the tidy-clMutableDispathcKHR
target to check) but the tool didn't seem to mandate const
on these, but I went through and added const
anyway
|
||
for (const auto config_ptr : mutable_dispatch_configs) { | ||
OCL_CHECK(config_ptr == nullptr, return CL_INVALID_VALUE); | ||
const cl_mutable_dispatch_config_khr config = *config_ptr; |
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.
Originally, config
was a reference, it should probably remain a reference?
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.
I've made this config
variable a reference and the loop iteration variable config_ptr
935a451
to
c14327a
Compare
source/cl/examples/CMakeLists.txt
Outdated
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ endif() | |||
if(${OCL_EXTENSION_cl_khr_command_buffer_mutable_dispatch}) | |||
# Intentionally misnamed. Windows guesses that executables with "patch" | |||
# in the file name are installers and need admin privileges. | |||
add_ca_cl_example(clMutableDispathcKHR | |||
add_ca_cl_example(clMutableDispatchKHR |
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 was not a typo, the comment explains why it had that name.
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.
Reverted this, thanks
} | ||
|
||
const cl_mutable_dispatch_config_khr **casted_configs = | ||
reinterpret_cast<const cl_mutable_dispatch_config_khr **>(configs); |
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.
I don't think this (when dereferencing the result) is well-defined in standard C++, and I do not recall whether current compilers optimize on the assumption that we do not do this. Do you know?
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.
So we're looking at the same thing, do you have a reference to where this is UB? I'm looking at https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/reinterpret_cast and guessing it's point 5) then "Type Accessibility" doesn't seem to cover this case as well defined.
I'm not sure how type based alias analysis works with void**
that we're only reading from after the cast, could put this through compiler explorer to double check what some popular compilers are doing. An alternative could be to use a C-style case, but looking at https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/explicit_cast it seems like this will fallback to reinterpret_cast
since static_cast
isn't valid. The most conservative code is maybe defining a separate variable and memcpying to it.
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.
Yes, it's the type accessibility thing. There is no need to memcpy
, we can use cargo::array_view<const void *>
and use a static_cast
on its elements instead.
c14327a
to
84be0bf
Compare
67bd9ee
to
abac7ad
Compare
Overview
Update cl_khr_command_buffer_mutable_dispatch implementation to reflect specification changes merged in KhronosGroup/OpenCL-Docs#1041
Reflects changes from upstream in:
Description of change
Updates our implementation from spec revision 0.9.1 of cl_khr_command_buffer_mutable_dispatch to revision 0.9.2 which made a breaking API change to
clUpdateMutableCommandsKHR()
.Checklist