-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 113
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
[KT] Remove data() function from range view classes #1044
[KT] Remove data() function from range view classes #1044
Conversation
for additional details please see: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/dpcpp-cpp-compiler/developer-guide-reference/2023-0/explicit-simd-sycl-extension.html
|
@MikeDvorskiy what do you think about this? |
@@ -245,6 +245,9 @@ class guard_view | |||
// Unified funciton to get pointer or accessor to use inside ESIMD kernels | |||
_Iterator data() |
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.
@MikeDvorskiy, I believe we are able to remove this function only.
@@ -100,6 +100,8 @@ class all_view | |||
// Unified funciton to get pointer or accessor to use inside ESIMD kernels | |||
__accessor_t data() |
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.
@MikeDvorskiy, I believe this function still required in any case du existed restrictions described in https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/dpcpp-cpp-compiler/developer-guide-reference/2023-0/explicit-simd-sycl-extension.html
Why |
@MikeDvorskiy, the begin() isn't enough due existing restrictions from https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/dpcpp-cpp-compiler/developer-guide-reference/2023-0/explicit-simd-sycl-extension.html : we are unable to work with data address from sycl::accessor together with esimd implementation. @dmitriy-sobolev early tried to do this. |
50d2d68
to
e920601
Compare
e920601
to
fe2cc72
Compare
@MikeDvorskiy finally, are you agree with current implementation on |
62dcb01
to
92e82a3
Compare
7c5b2cd
to
9abd10b
Compare
1ea4ef7
to
e3bcc96
Compare
9abd10b
to
8b9ed3f
Compare
e3bcc96
to
066bb6d
Compare
8b9ed3f
to
3dc42ec
Compare
066bb6d
to
9d4269f
Compare
8500608
to
56e1870
Compare
af77e4d
to
f48fefe
Compare
ffc3dfb
to
8726ac4
Compare
f77a660
to
5aba75e
Compare
3161b3e
to
65a6b34
Compare
6a86bbe
to
8a3bf7b
Compare
c0bce0b
to
a5826c5
Compare
a9ca5d4
to
9eb5e27
Compare
c2ebbe3
to
0c4c94d
Compare
0c4c94d
to
beb1d10
Compare
b85452d
to
65d10e9
Compare
This PR created for discussion how to avoid two new
data()
methods in esimd radix sort code.