-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 68
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
Clarify access::target::host_task #537
Clarify access::target::host_task #537
Conversation
c595226
to
4234c45
Compare
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 the clarification.
This reflects the restructure that @gmlueck suggested in KhronosGroup#537.
This reflects the restructure that @gmlueck suggested in KhronosGroup#537.
0a7190b
to
c4df016
Compare
a011e40
to
1c02843
Compare
Thanks @gmlueck . Would you be able to merge this? |
I only have unilateral authority to merge editorial changes. I added the "agenda" label, so we can discuss this at the next WG meeting. |
Ok sure thanks |
An accessor with access::target::host_task is accessible on the host from within the host task lambda. It is necessary to specify that no get_native_mem method is needed and also that target::host_task means not only 'accessible within host_task' but 'accessible within host_task on the host'. This is necessary as host_task defines a scope, but it doesn't define where the memory is accessible from. It also adds reference to deprecated targets for accessors: target::local and target::constant_buffer for accessors.
b98911b
to
75162eb
Compare
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.
@gmlueck is this OK to merge now? |
Merge approvals normally happen during a WG call. Since there are now 2 organization approvals on this PR, I would expect it to be approved in next week's call. Is there a reason you want this merged sooner? If so, we could ask for an exception to the process (but no guarantees). |
Thanks for info. I didn't know this process. Just out of curiosity - how many organizations need to approve a patch in order for a SYCL spec change to be made?
No reason at all. Happy to wait for more approvals. |
For changes to the SYCL spec, two organizations must approve, which are both different from the organization that authored the patch. For changes to the CTS, we decided that only one organization (different from the author) is required. |
Thanks for info |
WG approved to merge. |
Clarify access::target::host_task
Clarify access::target::host_task (cherry picked from commit 01b97ec)
Clarify access::target::host_task (cherry picked from commit 01b97ec)
An accessor with
access::target::host_task
is accessible on the host from within the host task lambda.Specify that
access::target::host_task
means not only 'accessible within host_task' but 'accessible within host_task from the host'. This is necessary ashost_task
defines a scope, but it doesn't define where the memory is accessible from.