Skip to content

Conversation

@steffenlarsen
Copy link
Contributor

This commit adds the implementation logic for merging sycl_detail::add_ir_attributes_* attributes, which will enable the ability to apply multiple of the same attribute to the same declaration/definition, as long as the values associated to the same names in the attributes do not conflict.

This is needed for SYCL free function support as the way SYCL properties are applied are through macros expanding to
sycl_detail::add_ir_attributes_* with a single name-value-pair.

This commit adds the implementation logic for merging
__sycl_detail__::add_ir_attributes_* attributes, which will enable the
ability to apply multiple of the same attribute to the same
declaration/definition, as long as the values associated to the same
names in the attributes do not conflict.

This is needed for SYCL free function support as the way SYCL properties
are applied are through macros expanding to
__sycl_detail__::add_ir_attributes_* with a single name-value-pair.

Signed-off-by: Larsen, Steffen <steffen.larsen@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Larsen, Steffen <steffen.larsen@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Larsen, Steffen <steffen.larsen@intel.com>
[[__sycl_detail__::add_ir_attributes_function("Attr1", "Attr2", 1, true)]]
[[__sycl_detail__::add_ir_attributes_function("Attr1", "Attr2", 1, true)]]
[[__sycl_detail__::add_ir_attributes_function("Attr2", "Attr1", true, 1)]]
[[__sycl_detail__::add_ir_attributes_function("Attr1", "Attr2", 1, false)]]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think you should include invalid tests in AST checks. Unless you're checking the attribute does not get added in this case.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Right now the two tests have the same set of cases, but I don't necessarily disagree. Would you like me to remove the existing invalid cases as part of this PR or in a follow-up?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it anything you added should be be modified in this PR. We usually do not have invalid tests in AST checks.

Does invalid tests already exist in this file (before you changes)? If so, those should probably be modified in a separate PR.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It did already have invalid cases indeed. I have removed the new cases and remove the existing ones in #20492.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like I messed something up when trying to remove only the invalid cases introduced here. Instead of trying to fix the cases that will get removed anyway, I would prefer we merge the aforementioned PR first, then I will merge these changes with it.

Signed-off-by: Larsen, Steffen <steffen.larsen@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Larsen, Steffen <steffen.larsen@intel.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants