Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
[SYCL] Refactor SYCL kernel object handling in hierarchical parallelism #6212
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
[SYCL] Refactor SYCL kernel object handling in hierarchical parallelism #6212
Changes from 10 commits
eec1da1
6c60344
3530e1d
0e13ee9
e1511a7
eb6d2d7
969b468
ca26f57
1a61c46
b970a77
3886d8d
959e1aa
2d987ac
fdeaab6
0a5834b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Nit: we skip "this" because it is allocated in the proper AS by the FE, correct? Comment would be helpful for the reader.
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.
Right. I just reverted the changes from #1455 and tried to re-implement it by fixing address space in clang instead.
Do you want me to comment that
this
points to the object in local address space, so we don't need a shadow copy for that argument?