From: Erik S. <esc...@pe...> - 2011-11-06 00:17:42
|
The current way we handle cl_khr_fp64 and cl_khr_int64 leads to much code duplication. One alternative would be to define two macros __IFDBL(x) __IFLNG(x) that expand to their arguments if double and long are supported, respectively, and expand to nothing otherwise. #ifdef cl_khr_fp64 # define __IFDBL(x) x #else # define __IFDBL(x) #endif We would surround every line in _kernel.h that uses double or long with the respective macro. This would look like #define _CL_DECLARE_FUNC_V_V(NAME) \ float _cl_overloadable NAME(float ); \ float2 _cl_overloadable NAME(float2 ); \ __IFDBL(double _cl_overloadable NAME(double );) \ __IFDBL(double2 _cl_overloadable NAME(double2 );) Does this sound like a good idea? -erik -- Erik Schnetter <esc...@pe...> http://www.cct.lsu.edu/~eschnett/ AIM: eschnett247, Skype: eschnett, Google Talk: sch...@gm... |
From: Pekka J. <pek...@tu...> - 2011-11-06 20:24:49
|
On 11/06/2011 02:17 AM, Erik Schnetter wrote: > Does this sound like a good idea? Seems like a good idea to me. BR, -- --Pekka |
From: Carlos S. de La L. <car...@ur...> - 2011-11-07 10:02:48
|
Yep, good idea... just another macro would be needed for cases when both are needed (well, or just nesting the two tests). BR, Carlos El 06/11/2011, a las 22:24, Pekka Jääskeläinen escribió: > On 11/06/2011 02:17 AM, Erik Schnetter wrote: >> Does this sound like a good idea? > > Seems like a good idea to me. > > BR, > -- > --Pekka > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > RSA(R) Conference 2012 > Save $700 by Nov 18 > Register now > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 > _______________________________________________ > Pocl-devel mailing list > Poc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pocl-devel |