Skip to content

[SYCL][Doc] Add extension mechanism proposal #1601

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 7, 2020

Conversation

gmlueck
Copy link
Contributor

@gmlueck gmlueck commented Apr 28, 2020

First public review for SYCL extension mechanism proposal.

Signed-off-by: Greg Lueck [email protected]

First public review for SYCL extension mechanism proposal.

Signed-off-by: Greg Lueck <[email protected]>
@bader bader added the spec extension All issues/PRs related to extensions specifications label Apr 29, 2020
@bader bader merged commit cf65794 into intel:sycl May 7, 2020
@gmlueck gmlueck deleted the gmlueck/extension-api branch May 7, 2020 20:18
Comment on lines +180 to +183
above. Thus, the attribute namespace `sycl` is reserved for {cpp} attributes
used in the core SYCL specification, `sycl::khr` is reserved for Khronos
ratified extensions, and `sycl::ext::<vendorname>` is reserved for vendor
extensions.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@gmlueck, I wonder how is that correlates with C++ which is used as a base for SYCL? If I understand correctly, C++ allows only one namespace within attribute name, docs

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good point. This part of the spec should be rewritten as follows:

Extensions may also add C++ attributes. The attribute namespace sycl:: is reserved for attributes in the core SYCL specification and for Khronos ratified extensions. Vendor defined extensions should use a different attribute namespace.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
spec extension All issues/PRs related to extensions specifications
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants