added cl_half support for test_conversions

[shajder]

According to issue description (conversions section):

https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenCL-CTS/issues/142

Additional remarks:

• In the process of adding cl_khr_fp16 support source code was unified and as result heavily refactored.

• Some pieces of code (eg. InitCL fuction) stayed as it was previously for the sake of comparison purposes. For consistency I would suggest to move it to methods (eg. ConversionsTest::SetUp).

• Please take a closer look at method DataInfoSpec<>::init under condition is_in_half(). There is new code to initialize array of cl_half values for conversions. It was source of the problem due to some special values which brought undefined results. ATM this code avoids those problematic values.

• Capacity of test was decreased. I had some difficult time trying to figure out why this number is so extremely big. I will appreciate your feedback. I limited number of tests to 16 777 216 conversions (uint64_t lastCase = 1000000ULL;)

• At my machine intel driver do not implement some of kernel functions which I think should be available:

#pragma OPENCL EXTENSION cl_khr_fp16 : enable
__kernel void test_convert_half_sat_uchar( __global uchar *src, __global half *dest )
{
   size_t i = get_global_id(0);
   dest[i] = convert_half_sat( src[i] );
}
Build not successful for device "Intel(R) UHD Graphics [0x9a60]", status: CL_BUILD_ERROR
Build log for device "Intel(R) UHD Graphics [0x9a60]" is: ------------
3632:5:14: error: implicit declaration of function 'convert_half_sat' is invalid in OpenCL
   dest[i] = convert_half_sat( src[i] );

thus I wasn't able to finalize all tests successfully. I am counting on some help here, thanks!

[svenvh]

In the process of adding cl_khr_fp16 support source code was unified and as result heavily refactored.

Have you considered doing this unification/refactoring in a new pull request on its own? I would recommend doing so. We should hopefully be able to merge such refactorings relatively sooner. Then the changes for actually adding half support should be smaller, which benefits reviewers (a smaller patch is easier to review) and you (a smaller patch is easier to keep up to date).

[shajder]

Thanks for your feedback!

Have you considered doing this unification/refactoring in a new pull request on its own? I would recommend doing so.

yes, I think I have specific commit which is good candidate to separate work on unification and extension of test's functionality - so this is still an open door for us. On the other hand there were arguments to stick to single PR:

• it turns out that the unification code takes ~75%+ of whole task. Please correct me if I am wrong but my conclusion was that reviewing of unification PR will take approximately the same time as slightly bigger one introducing cl_khr_fp16 extension support.

• vast majority of the code responsible for the logic of the test stayed intact. What really changed is a wrapper layer around that logic + couple of necessary conditions. Thus I don't expect any major issues to investigate. BTW I had no problems with successful launch of whole unified test.

If you think those are not good enough to stick to single PR then let me know and I will start refactoring work on splitting it.

[svenvh]

If you think those are not good enough to stick to single PR then let me know and I will start refactoring work on splitting it.

I can't speak for others so please don't take my opinion too strongly. Maybe I'm the minority here who prefer multiple smaller commits/PRs that each do one thing instead of a large monolithic PR that does multiple things.

But to illustrate a point: this PR already seems to conflict with the main branch; and the larger the PR, the higher the chances of such conflicts occurring. Hence I believe that doing the refactoring separately will simplify maintenance of this PR in the long term (as we will probably need to give vendors a fair amount of time to test the new fp16 coverage on their devices, whereas generic refactorings shouldn't need as much time).

[bcalidas]

We are still reviewing this change.

[lakshmih]

We would like to double check results at our end, can we get some more time.

[lakshmih]

We are having trouble testing and verifying this PR. Could this PR be split into two changes, one for the code refactoring and the other for enhancing fp16 coverage?

[shajder]

We are having trouble testing and verifying this PR. Could this PR be split into two changes, one for the code refactoring and the other for enhancing fp16 coverage?

@lakshmih here is PR with modernized conversions without cl_khr_fp16 support

[svenvh]

This will need a rebase now that #1719 has landed.

[bashbaug]

FYI, I'm seeing failures here too, looking into them now.

[bashbaug]

This PR needs a new owner, so for now I've removed "focused review" and added "help wanted".

[bashbaug]

I spoke too soon, and I'm seeing a few failures in double to half conversions, for non-round-to-even rounding modes:

Example for: test_conversions half_rtn_double -w -1

Building convert_half_rtn( double ) test
Testing... .
Error for vector size 1 found at 0x00003f76:  *-0x1.8p+1 vs -0x1.804p+1
Input value: -0x1.8000000000001p+1  (convert_half_rtn( double ))
         *** convert_halfn_rtn( doublen ) FAILED ** 
conversions FAILED

I'm checking to see if this is an issue with our implementation or with the tests.

[lakshmih]

We are running this test and there are no failures so far. However it takes quite a bit of time to complete so can we hold off merging so long as Qualcomm agrees to see this through.

[bashbaug]

I think we should merge this as-is and fix any bugs that appear.

@lakshmih can you run a "wimpy" test first to gain confidence that the changes are OK? Maybe even a scalar-only "wimpy" test? This finishes fairly promptly on our devices.

Example: test_conversions -w -1

[bashbaug]

I just created an fp16-staging branch, as we discussed. If this PR is retargeted at this branch I will merge it, also as we discussed.

It's been a few days now though. @lakshmih has your testing completed? If so, would we be OK to merge this to the main branch, instead?

[shajder]

I just created an fp16-staging branch, as we discussed. If this PR is retargeted at this branch I will merge it, also as we discussed.

@bashbaug I've created new PR to be merged with fp16-staging branch

[bashbaug]

Removing "focused review", since we are reviewing and merging changes into the staging branch now.

[shajder]

This PR was merged to main branch along with #1975, closing