Add SYCL version check

[dklochkov-emb]

Check of SYCL version was added according to agreement, see details:
KhronosGroup/SYCL-Docs#634

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[gmlueck]

Shouldn't this be something like:

static_assert(SYCL_LANGUAGE_VERSION == 202012L)

Followed by a check that the type is really long.

[dklochkov-emb]

Agree, fixed

[gmlueck]

Followed by a check that the type is really long.

Something like:

static_assert(std::is_same_v<decltype(SYCL_LANGUAGE_VERSION), long>);

[gmlueck]

Not sure if this log message is still useful since we are now checking for a specific value.

[dklochkov-emb]

As for me, we can remove this log message due to static_assert.

[dklochkov-emb]

Ping

[keryell]

Thanks.
By the way, it is better to write SYCL in uppercase everywhere, even in the commit messages.

[bader]

@dklochkov-emb, please, address this feedback by fixing commit message. Alternatively, I can do it myself by squashing all commits with my own commit message.

Please, fix CI failures.

[tomdeakin]

Please bump the DPC++ version in the CI to ensure this test doesn't fail.
Resolve AdaptiveCpp either by updating implementation, or disabling this test.

[psalz]

I realize this is not your fault, but the whole test setup used here is terribly outdated. The idiomatic way of writing this test would be something like

TEST_CASE("The implementation defines the correct SYCL_LANGUAGE_VERSION macro") {
#ifndef SYCL_LANGUAGE_VERSION
    FAIL("SYCL_LANGUAGE_VERSION is not defined");
#else
    STATIC_REQUIRE(std::is_same_v<decltype(SYCL_LANGUAGE_VERSION), long>);
    STATIC_REQUIRE(SYCL_LANGUAGE_VERSION == 202012L);
#endif
}

Edit: Actually, why does this check have to be a static assertion? Can't we just fail at runtime?

[illuhad]

I've just aligned SYCL_LANGUAGE_VERSION in upstream AdaptiveCpp: AdaptiveCpp/AdaptiveCpp#1630
So if we update the CI image, the test should also work in AdaptiveCpp.

[AlexeySachkov]

Edit: Actually, why does this check have to be a static assertion? Can't we just fail at runtime?

The earlier you get an error, the better. When you work on a SYCL implementation and static assert fails, you immediately know where and what failed: most likely some of interfaces don't have correct signatures (like type of a macro-defined constant here).

However, when you run CTS, you probably also want to have a little check saying "yes, interfaces are correct" simply for having all checks reported at the same time and be a part of a final CTS validation report.

check2 allows to fully offload STATIC_REQUIRE to runtime phase via CATCH_CONFIG_RUNTIME_STATIC_REQUIRE. Perhaps that could be a default mode in which we run CI and do certification runs. Development could stay with compile-time reporting mode for shorter feedback loop.