grokos added inline comments.

Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/Cuda.cpp:559
+    if (!FoundBCLibrary)
+      getDriver().Diag(diag::remark_drv_omp_offload_target_missingbcruntime);
+  }
Should we be more specific when it comes to the name of the missing bc file and 
include the `sm` version? E.g. we may have `libomptarget-nvptx-sm35.bc` in 
`LIBRARY_PATH` but the driver needs `libomptarget-nvptx-sm60.bc`. If the user 
gets a general `missing libomptarget-nvptx.bc` message, it may not be clear 
what the problem is.

  rC Clang

cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to