Skip to content
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

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

EwanC
Copy link
Contributor

@EwanC EwanC commented Jul 19, 2024

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

  • Read and follow the project Code of Conduct.
  • Make sure the project builds successfully with your changes.
  • Run relevant testing locally to avoid regressions.
  • Run clang-format-17 on all modified code.

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
@EwanC EwanC force-pushed the update_using_array branch from 0db99fe to a91f218 Compare July 19, 2024 13:15
bashbaug pushed a commit to KhronosGroup/OpenCL-CTS that referenced this pull request Sep 6, 2024
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
@EwanC EwanC force-pushed the update_using_array branch from 32ede68 to 33ad6a6 Compare September 16, 2024 11:37
@EwanC EwanC changed the title WIP: Update clUpdateMutableCommandsKHR to match new API Update clUpdateMutableCommandsKHR to match new API Sep 16, 2024
@EwanC EwanC marked this pull request as ready for review September 16, 2024 12:31
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{
Copy link
Collaborator

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?

Copy link
Contributor Author

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;
Copy link
Collaborator

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?

Copy link
Contributor Author

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

@EwanC EwanC force-pushed the update_using_array branch from 935a451 to c14327a Compare September 24, 2024 12:44
@@ -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
Copy link
Collaborator

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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

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);
Copy link
Collaborator

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?

Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

Copy link
Collaborator

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.

@EwanC EwanC force-pushed the update_using_array branch from c14327a to 84be0bf Compare September 25, 2024 08:56
@EwanC EwanC force-pushed the update_using_array branch from 67bd9ee to abac7ad Compare September 27, 2024 12:45
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.

3 participants