I don't remember the specifics of why we ended up interfacing with Clang this way. What is technically wrong with it, specifically? I don't have any objection to switching to the Driver and Compilation interface, nor to translating the "-cl-denorms-are-zero" option to whatever the current option name is so the current Clang interfacing keeps working.
Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> writes: > Hey all (mostly Tom). > > I've been learning new things today since Matt pushed a patch to clang > to remove "-cl-denorms-are-zero" from cc1 options. I thought this was > a regression or we should hack things to pass a different flag (which > I did locally for testing), but Matt informed me clover is likely > interfacing to clang wrong. > > The correct way to do things seems to be to build up a set of command > line args pass those to the Driver, create a Compilation object, with > jobs, and then execute each job in turns, one of the jobs would be a > cc1 job and the driver would have all the correct arguments for it. > > Now I'll likely dig into this a bit more, but I was wondering if > anyone knows historically why this wasn't done. I know for example > with clover we really only want to use a the cc1 pass since at least > for the NIR backend we just want to emit LLVM bytecode and pass it to > the spirv conversion, so using the driver might be overkill. > > Dave.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev