Add testing for CL_KERNEL_LOCAL_MEM_SIZE #1235

[kamil-goras-mobica]

#1235

[EwanC]

Can we use a smart pointer here rather than malloc (e.g. make_unique) so that if the function returns early before the free(localData) we don't leak.

[bashbaug]

localData is unused. We may as well remove it entirely.

[bashbaug]

Note: it seems odd to put this test into test_api_consistency.cpp, since it has nothing to do with API consistency checks. I'd recommend putting it into its own new file test_kernel_local_memory_size.cpp, similar to the existing test_kernel_private_memory_size.cpp.

[bashbaug]

We really ought to return TEST_FAIL here rather than the magic number -1. Or, even better, something like:

Suggested change

	if (create_single_kernel_helper(context, &program, &kernel, 1, empty_kernel,
	"empty_kernel")
	!= 0)
	{
	return -1;
	}
	error = create_single_kernel_helper(context, &program, &kernel, 1, empty_kernel,
	"empty_kernel");
	test_error(error, "Unable to create empty_kernel");

[kamil-goras-mobica]

@bashbaug I have added some corrections, tested under Intel, Nvidia, POCL and SimpleOpenCLSamples Layers. There were discrepancies in results, I wanted to check all scenarios that get into my mind. Please review and tell me which does not make sense.

[EwanC]

Looking good but noticed that we don't verify the param_value_size_ret output parameter to clGetKernelWorkGroupInfo, but a conformant implementation should set that to sizeof(cl_ulong). Can we check that too.

[bashbaug]

Discussed in the October 15th teleconference. We will wait one more week for a few more reviews.

[bashbaug]

FWIW, this check is failing for me for POCL because the queried value is coming back as zero. I'm not sure if this is a POCL issue or if POCL is being clever and optimizing away the local memory array - maybe @pjaaskel can check?

[pjaaskel]

It shouldn't optimize this case away. I opened a PoCL issue. We'll check what's going on.

[bashbaug]

Gah, my previous review should have been "request changes", sorry about that.

Here is one more nitpick - there are several misspellings of "verification".

[bashbaug]

Suggested change

	test_assert_error(local_memory_kernel_verify(),
	"local_memory_kernel data verificaion failed");
	test_assert_error(local_memory_kernel_verify(),
	"local_memory_kernel data verification failed");

[bashbaug]

There are still two additional places with the same misspelling.

[lakshmih]

Could be changed to:

auto local_param_local_memory_kernel_verify = & {
constexpr size_t size = 10;
int testData[size];

for (size_t i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
    testData[i] = i * 2;
}

int temp = testData[9];
for (size_t i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
    if (i == 9)
        testData[9] += temp;
    else
        testData[9] += testData[i];
}
testData[9] += 666;

for (size_t i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
    if (data[i] != testData[i]) return false;
}

return true;

};

[lakshmih]

Looks good in present form, suggested a modification.

[bashbaug]

LGTM, I'm OK with this going in as-is.

The POCL failure still exists with the latest code, though this may be a legitimate POCL failure.