-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 794
[SYCL][Doc] Add test plan for work_group_memory extension
#15639
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
[SYCL][Doc] Add test plan for work_group_memory extension
#15639
Conversation
steffenlarsen
left a comment
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.
Small nits, otherwise LGTM!
|
|
||
| List of data types which should be covered: | ||
| - some basic C++ data types of different sizes: `char`, `int16_t`, `int`, | ||
| `double` |
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.
Is double part of the list above or a separate type to be covered? Since half is mentioned by itself, I think it would make sense to do that for double too. Should we also mention that the tests for double and half require aspect::fp64 and aspect::fp16 respectively?
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.
Is double part of the list above or a separate type to be covered? Since half is mentioned by itself, I think it would make sense to do that for double too.
half is in a separate list, because it is not a basic C++ type, its a custom type introduced by SYCL specification.
I don't think that we should outline "optional" data types separately, because then we also need to consider atomic_ref for 64-bit types and I generally expect that the fact that certain tests have "extra" requirements and may be skipped on certain HW as implied, simply because that is automatically the case if a test is properly written in accordance with the SYCL specification.
lbushi25
left a comment
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.
LGTM
Co-authored-by: Steffen Larsen <[email protected]>
No description provided.