jlebar marked an inline comment as done.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/Driver.cpp:1026-1028
@@ -1024,4 +1025,5 @@
} else if (CudaDeviceAction *CDA = dyn_cast<CudaDeviceAction>(A)) {
- os << '"'
- << (CDA->getGpuArchName() ? CDA->getGpuArchName() : "(multiple archs)")
+ os << '"' << (CDA->getGpuArch() != CudaArch::UNKNOWN
+ ? CudaArchToString(CDA->getGpuArch())
+ : "(multiple archs)")
<< '"' << ", {" << PrintActions1(C, *CDA->input_begin(), Ids) << "}";
----------------
tra wrote:
> jlebar wrote:
> > tra wrote:
> > > I think this could be collapsed to just
> > > CudaArchToString(CDA->getGpuArch()).
> > > "(multiple archs)" is as informative as (and indistinguishable from)
> > > "unknown" here.
> > >
> > >
> > I'm not crazy about "unknown", since it *is* actually known. How about we
> > just not output anything?
> It's a debugging output so it would be good to accurately reflect our
> internal state.
> In this case if we for some reason end up with CudaArch::UNKNOWN, I'd want to
> know that.
> If we really use UNKNOWN to represent multiple archs, perhaps it needs an
> enum for multiple-archs.
We really do use UNKNOWN here to represent multiple architectures. It is used
for the architecture of the Action corresponding to the call to fatbin.
I think adding an enum value for multiple-archs is going to be more harmful
than useful, because it means that everywhere that we switch() on arch, we're
going to have to handle (and assert) MULTIPLE_ARCHs.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21867
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
