llvm VS llvm-project

Intel's modern compilers (icx, icpx) are clang-based. There is an open-source version [1], and the closed-source version is built atop of this with extra closed-source special sauce.

AOCC and ROCm are also based on LLVM/clang.

[1] https://github.com/intel/llvm

You are not missing anything spec-wise, it is just that particular version of the compiler/runtime doesn't support that query. Support for it was added in intel/llvm#7937 and it should be available in the next oneAPI release.

Install the Intel OpenCL CPU Runtime. AMD CPUs are x86-64 too, so they work just like Intel CPUs do. Afaik, performance is significantly better than with POCL. This also works with EPYC, like the new 96-core Genoa.

The Meson build system Version: 1.0.0 Source dir: /var/home/sri/Projects/simple-oneapi Build dir: /var/home/sri/Projects/simple-oneapi/builddir Build type: native build Project name: simple-oneapi Project version: 0.1.0 C compiler for the host machine: clang (clang 16.0.0 "clang version 16.0.0 (https://github.com/intel/llvm 08be083e07b1fd6437267e26adb92f1b647d57dd)") C linker for the host machine: clang ld.bfd 2.34 C++ compiler for the host machine: clang++ (clang 16.0.0 "clang version 16.0.0 (https://github.com/intel/llvm 08be083e07b1fd6437267e26adb92f1b647d57dd)") C++ linker for the host machine: clang++ ld.bfd 2.34 Host machine cpu family: x86_64 Host machine cpu: x86_64 Build targets in project: 1 Found ninja-1.11.1.git.kitware.jobserver-1 at /var/home/sri/.local/bin/ninja

$ sudo mkdir -p /opt/intel $ sudo mkdir -p /etc/OpenCL/vendors/intel_fpgaemu.icd $ cd /tmp $ wget https://github.com/intel/llvm/releases/download/2022-WW50/oclcpuexp-2022.15.12.0.01_rel.tar.gz $ wget https://github.com/intel/llvm/releases/download/2022-WW50/fpgaemu-2022.15.12.0.01_rel.tar.gz $ sudo bash # cd /opt/intel # mkdir oclfpgaemu- # cd oclfpgaemu- # tar xvfpz /tmp/fpgaemu-2022.15.12.0.01_rel.tar.gz # cd .. # mkdir oclcpuexp_ # cd oclcpuexp- # tar xvfpz /tmp/oclcpuexp- # cd ..

oneAPI includes an implementation of SYCL called DPC++. This implementation supports Intel, Nvidia and AMD GPUs (currently for Nvidia and AMD you need to build the support from the source) but oneAPI also includes some libraries too like oneDNN and oneMKL that use SYCL.

Yes, you can use multiple backends with the same compiled binary. For example you can use DPC++ with Nvidia, AMD and Intel GPU at the same time. ComputeCpp also has the ability to output a binary that can target multiple targets. Each backend generates the ISA for each GPU, and then the SYCL runtime chooses the right one at execution time. There is no ODR violation because each GPU executable is stored on separate ELF sections and loaded at runtime : the C++ linker does not see them. The code doesn't need to have any layers, the only changes you might (but don't have to) make are to optimize for specific processor features.

Intel LLVM SYCL oneAPI DPC++ - an open source implementation of SYCL that is being contributed to the LLVM project

I'm using intel cpu, and after reading this i'm just curious can i set this up with portage? Are there any ebuilds to build this? Do i need whole toolchain from intel site (3Gb+) or just 300 mb tar from their github?

As far as I know, libstdc++'s representation has two advantages:

First, it simplifies the implementation of `s.data()`, because you hold a pointer that invariably points to the first character of the data. The pointer-less version needs to do a branch there. Compare libstdc++ [1] to libc++ [2].

[1]: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/065dddc/libstdc++-v3/...

[2]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1a96179/libcxx/inc...

Basically libstdc++ is paying an extra 8 bytes of storage, and losing trivial relocatability, in exchange for one fewer branch every time you access the string's characters. I imagine that the performance impact of that extra branch is tiny, and massively confounded in practice by unrelated factors that are clearly on libc++'s side (e.g. libc++'s SSO buffer is 7 bytes bigger, despite libc++'s string object itself being smaller). But it's there.

The second advantage is that libstdc++ already did it that way, and to change it would be an ABI break; so now they're stuck with it. I mean, obviously that's not an "advantage" in the intuitive sense; but it's functionally equivalent to an advantage, in that it's a very strong technical answer to the question "Why doesn't libstdc++ just switch to doing it libc++'s way?"

This Ruby implementation is based on mruby and LLVM and it’s commercial software but cheap.

'Computer Architeture: A Quantitative Apporach" and/or more specific design types (mips, arm, etc) can be found under the Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Architeture and Design.

"Getting Started with LLVM Core Libraries: Get to Grips With Llvm Essentials and Use the Core Libraries to Build Advanced Tools "

"The Architecture of Open Source Applications (Volume 1) : LLVM" https://aosabook.org/en/v1/llvm.html

"Tourist Guide to LLVM source code" : https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1453

llvm home page : https://llvm.org/

llvm tutorial : https://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/

llvm reference : https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html

learn by examples : C source code to 'llvm' bitcode : https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9148890/how-to-make-clan...

See

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/88344

https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/flang-new-how-to-forc...

You can never mistake type_declaration with an identifier, otherwise the program will not work. Aside from that constraint, you are free to name them whatever you like, there is no one standard, and each parser has it own naming conventions, unless you are planning to use something like LLVM. If you are interested, you can see examples of naming in different language parsers in the AST Explorer.

> There is one way to make the LLVM JIT compiler more usable, but I fear it’s going to take years to be implemented: being able to cache and reuse compiled queries.

Actually, it's implemented in LLVM for years :) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a98546ebcd2a692e...

> It's true, this was a CVE in Rust and not a CVE in C++, but only because C++ doesn't regard the issue as a problem at all. The problem definitely exists in C++, but it's not acknowledged as a problem, let alone fixed.

Can you find a link that substantiates your claim? You're throwing out some heavy accusations here that don't seem to match reality at all.

Case in point, this was fixed in both major C++ libraries:

https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ebf6175464768983a2d...

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4f67a909902d8ab9...

So what C++ community refused to regard this as an issue and refused to fix it? Where is your supporting evidence for your claims?

For everyone else looking for the magic in this almost 7k lines monster, look at line 6610 [1].

[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/8ec28af8eaff5acd0d...