Anastasia added a comment. In D78979#2011582 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D78979#2011582>, @jvesely wrote:
> In D78979#2006901 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D78979#2006901>, @yaxunl wrote: > > > In D78979#2006847 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D78979#2006847>, @arsenm wrote: > > > > > I'm also wondering if using -nogpulib for the corresponding linker > > > purpose was correct, since in the OpenCL case it's not really an offload > > > target. Maybe this should switch to -nostdlib? > > > > > > -nogpulib is fine since opencl compiler is in parallel with the device > > compiler of CUDA/HIP. The library it uses is the device library. > > > OpenCL can target other devices than GPUs, including CPUs and FPGAs, > referring to gpulibs wrt opencl is a misnomer. > > It would be nice to have some clarity as to how OpenCL is handled wrt clang > frontend vs. clang driver. > OpenCL options are currently split between the two (e.g. cl-denorms-are-zero > is only available in the driver and not the frontend) > There are 3 implementations of CL headers, two in clang which might or might > not be included by default, and the 3rd one in libclc. Thanks for the feedback. That's very useful. Some of those I believe are just bugs and we should probably report them through bugzilla and fix them. But others I believe are due to the lack of documentation. indeed. That we should definitely keep improving. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D78979/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D78979 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
