jhuber6 wrote: > > How much of this is actually different from the existing target info for > > AMDGCN? Seems like we're doing a lot of redundant stuff like defining > > macros or features. > > That's part of the point, it's not actually supposed to differ in those > particular regards, up to the point where things fork into specific GFXIPs. > At the same time, there's no feasible way to re-use any of that, at least not > one that I can see with how targets currently work. If you're suggesting that > this should actually be based on AMDGPUTargetInfo, that's probably not the > right way to go since that sets additional things that do not work with SPIRV > at all.
Yeah, I was unsure how much of this is a subset. We could pull the common stuff into some new base class that both targets then inherit from, but it depends how much code we actually save with that method. I think I agree at the very least we should try to avoid duplicating the register list. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89796 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
