Hi Andrew,
Andrew Stubbs wrote:
OK for mainline ?
This looks fine to me. I know there will be things that need fixing for
both experimental architectures.
Indeed. I tried to be a bit more verbose also to avoid too high
expectations by occasional gcc-patches@ readers.
P.S. Apologies, but I think my commits today conflict a little; you
should be able to drop the hunks that patch deleted code.
I did so - but I then realized that I should have also added gfx1100 to
the new chunk.
Committed as r14-7006-g97a52f69d209f6 (see attachment) - as follow up to
the original r14-7005-g52a2c659ae6c21
Tobias
commit 97a52f69d209f69e755ffad6897c7176da9ac686
Author: Tobias Burnus <tob...@codesourcery.com>
Date: Mon Jan 8 15:18:10 2024 +0100
amdgcn: Add gfx1100 to new XNACK defaults in mkoffload
Commit r14-6997-g78dff4c25c1b95 added an arch-dependent
SET_XNACK_OFF vs. SET_XNACK_ANY check; that was added
between writing and committing the add-gfx1100
commit r14-7005-g52a2c659ae6c21 - and I missed to add
it there.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/gcn/mkoffload.cc (main): Handle gfx1100
when setting the default XNACK.
---
gcc/config/gcn/mkoffload.cc | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/gcc/config/gcn/mkoffload.cc b/gcc/config/gcn/mkoffload.cc
index 2cd201d56ca..d4cd509089e 100644
--- a/gcc/config/gcn/mkoffload.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/gcn/mkoffload.cc
@@ -1018,6 +1018,7 @@ main (int argc, char **argv)
case EF_AMDGPU_MACH_AMDGCN_GFX906:
case EF_AMDGPU_MACH_AMDGCN_GFX908:
case EF_AMDGPU_MACH_AMDGCN_GFX1030:
+ case EF_AMDGPU_MACH_AMDGCN_GFX1100:
SET_XNACK_OFF (elf_flags);
break;
case EF_AMDGPU_MACH_AMDGCN_GFX90a:
