tra added a comment.
I've thought a bit more about this and there's another quirk -- symlinks.
What if we've found /usr/bin/ptxas and is a symlink pointing to the real ptxas
in the CUDA installation? If we add /usr to the list of candidates it will not
help us at all. We should probably find the real path and add another candidate
path derived from it.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/Cuda.cpp:206
// -nocudalib hasn't been specified.
- if (LibDeviceMap.empty() && !Args.hasArg(options::OPT_nocudalib))
+ if (CheckLibDevice && LibDeviceMap.empty())
continue;
----------------
Hahnfeld wrote:
> tra wrote:
> > I think this may be too strict.
> >
> > Checking directory structure for the purposes of detecting CUDA SDK should
> > work well enough to weed out false detection for 'split' CUDA installation
> > and we've verified libdevice directory presence above.
> >
> > Checking for libdevice bitcode is somewhat orthogonal to this. IMO,
> > regardless of how we've found the installation directory, whether we have
> > suitable libdevice version there should not matter if user explicitly
> > passed -nocudalib. Insisting on libdevice presence in this situation would
> > be somewhat surprising.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> So you are suggesting to revert the change to this line, right?
Yes, if you agree with my reasoning.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42642
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
