- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 794
[SYCL] Assert for kernel having a name in runtime vs compile time #20060
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
      
      
    Conversation
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
    b815045    to
    c31b419      
    Compare
  
    c31b419    to
    18c0d92      
    Compare
  
    Downstream CI uncovered another scenario where `detail::CompileTimeKernelInfo<KernelName>.Name` might be empty (other than non-SYCL compilation in some of the [unit]tests). That happens when compiling the same TU using multiple offload models (e.g., both SYCL and OMP) and the device compilation for non-SYCL model doesn't use SYCL integration header to provide kernel information. Also, my previous comments about `__usmfill` turned out to be incorrect. We do NOT unconditionally instantiate any of those in the `sycl/handler.hpp`, it was individual unittests that did that.
18c0d92    to
    ab11500      
    Compare
  
    
              
                    AlexeySachkov
  
              
              approved these changes
              
                  
                    Sep 12, 2025 
                  
              
              
            
            
              
                    sergey-semenov
  
              
              approved these changes
              
                  
                    Sep 12, 2025 
                  
              
              
            
            
| @intel/llvm-gatekeepers please consider merging | 
Co-authored-by: Sergey Semenov <[email protected]>
| doesn't seem related and previous revision of the PR (that differs only in comments) has passed. | 
  
    Sign up for free
    to join this conversation on GitHub.
    Already have an account?
    Sign in to comment
  
      
  Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
  This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
  Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
  Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
  Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
  Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
  Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
  You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
  Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
  This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
  Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
  Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
  Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
  Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
  
    
  
    
Follow-up for #19990
Downstream CI uncovered another scenario where
detail::CompileTimeKernelInfo<KernelName>.Namemight be empty (other than non-SYCL compilation in some of the [unit]tests). That happens when compiling the same TU using multiple offload models (e.g., both SYCL and OMP) and the device compilation for non-SYCL model doesn't use SYCL integration header to provide kernel information.Ideally, we should be just guarding
static_asserts with some#if __SYCL_WHATEVERbut we don't set any SYCL-related macro when using 3rd party host compilers. Deal with that by turning compile-timestatic_assertinto a run-timeassertunless we can guarantee that SYCL kernel information is available.