Skip to content

update sycl_ext_complex - #239

Open
bd4 wants to merge 2 commits into
wdmapp:mainfrom
bd4:pr/new-sycl-ext
Open

update sycl_ext_complex#239
bd4 wants to merge 2 commits into
wdmapp:mainfrom
bd4:pr/new-sycl-ext

Conversation

@bd4

@bd4bd4 commented Jan 16, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Note that for some reason the gtensor specified AssignN kernel names no longer work with the additional template parameter on sycl ext complex type; the name is missing the void parameter on some names in the kernel and it appears to be a phase where the default parameter can't be inserted, and it fails to compile.

@bd4

bd4 commented Jan 16, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

See argonne-lcf/SyclCPLX#25

@bd4
bd4 requested a review from germaschJanuary 16, 2023 23:09
@bd4
bd4 marked this pull request as ready for review January 16, 2023 23:09

@germaschgermasch left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks fine to me.

@bd4
bd4force-pushed the pr/new-sycl-ext branch 6 times, most recently from 05b0bc2 to a667552CompareJanuary 18, 2023 16:08
For some reason the gtensor specified AssignN kernel names were missing
the second sycl_cplx::complex type arg, and failed to compile. Using
only the to_kernel types fixes the issue, and also makes the names more
compact and easier to read. I don't think they are actually necessary to
avoid duplication, the kernel types alone should be unique.
@bd4
bd4force-pushed the pr/new-sycl-ext branch from a667552 to c27a6b6CompareJune 19, 2023 14:01
Sign up for freeto 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

@bd4@germasch