https://github.com/jhuber6 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79873
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/jhuber6 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79873
>From 35e12c3d83f3be93618805ffaf05e3424689f32f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Huber
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:08:04 -0600
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [NVPTX] Allow compiling LLVM-IR without `-march` set
Summary:
https://github.com/jhuber6 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79873
>From 35e12c3d83f3be93618805ffaf05e3424689f32f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Huber
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:08:04 -0600
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [NVPTX] Allow compiling LLVM-IR without `-march` set
Summary:
https://github.com/Artem-B approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79873
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Artem-B wrote:
Considering that it's for the stand-alone compilation only, I'm not going to
block this patch.
That said, please add a `TODO` somewhere to address an issue w/ explicitly
targeting generic variant.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79873
jhuber6 wrote:
> > Right now if you specify target-cpu you get target-cpu attributes, which is
> > what we don't want.
>
> I'm fine handling 'generic' in a special way under the hood and not
> specifying target-CPU.
>
> My concern is about user-facing interface. Command line options must be
Artem-B wrote:
> Right now if you specify target-cpu you get target-cpu attributes, which is
> what we don't want.
I'm fine handling 'generic' in a special way under the hood and not specifying
target-CPU.
My concern is about user-facing interface. Command line options must be
overridable.
jhuber6 wrote:
> > I think there's some precedent from both vendors to treat missing
> > attributes as a more generic target.
>
> It sounds more like a bug than a feature to me.
>
> The major difference between "you get sm_xx by default" and this "you get
> generic by default" is that With sp
Artem-B wrote:
> I think there's some precedent from both vendors to treat missing attributes
> as a more generic target.
It sounds more like a bug than a feature to me.
The major difference between "you get sm_xx by default" and this "you get
generic by default" is that With specific sm_XX,
jhuber6 wrote:
> Relying on something _not_ being defined is probably not the best way to
> handle 'generic' target. For starters it makes it hard or impossible to
> recreate the same compilation state by undoing already-specified option. It
> also breaks established assumption that there _is_
Artem-B wrote:
Relying on something *not* being defined is probably not the best way to handle
'generic' target. For starters it makes it hard or impossible to recreate the
same compilation state by undoing already-specified option. It also breaks
established assumption that there *is* a defau
https://github.com/jlebar approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79873
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-driver
Author: Joseph Huber (jhuber6)
Changes
Summary:
The NVPTX tools require an architecture to be used, however if we are
creating generic LLVM-IR we should be able to leave it unspecified. This
will result in the `target-cpu` attributes not bei
https://github.com/jhuber6 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79873
Summary:
The NVPTX tools require an architecture to be used, however if we are
creating generic LLVM-IR we should be able to leave it unspecified. This
will result in the `target-cpu` attributes not being set on t
14 matches
Mail list logo
