rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:308-335
@@ -349,1 +307,30 @@
+ Action::OffloadKind ActiveOffloadingKind = Action::OFK_None) {
+ SmallVector<const ToolChain *, 3> RelevantToolChains;
+ // Add the current tool chain to the relevant tool chain list if it is
+ // defined.
+ if (RegularToolChain)
+ RelevantToolChains.push_back(RegularToolChain);
+
+ // Add all the offloading tool chains associated with the current action to
+ // the relevant tool chain list. If we don't have a specific active offload
+ // kind, consider all available, otherwise consider only the active kind.
+ if (ActiveOffloadingKind == Action::OFK_None ||
+ ActiveOffloadingKind == Action::OFK_Cuda) {
+ if (JA.isHostOffloading(Action::OFK_Cuda))
+ RelevantToolChains.push_back(
+ C.getSingleOffloadToolChain<Action::OFK_Host>());
+ else if (JA.isDeviceOffloading(Action::OFK_Cuda))
+ RelevantToolChains.push_back(
+ C.getSingleOffloadToolChain<Action::OFK_Cuda>());
+ }
+
+ //
+ // TODO: Add support for other offloading programming models here.
+ //
+
+ // Apply Work on all the relevant tool chains.
+ for (const auto *TC : RelevantToolChains) {
+ assert(TC && "Undefined tool chain??");
+ Work(TC);
+ }
}
----------------
There's no point in building a `SmallVector` here, just directly call `Work`
when you find a toolchain that should be used.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:317-318
@@ +316,4 @@
+ // kind, consider all available, otherwise consider only the active kind.
+ if (ActiveOffloadingKind == Action::OFK_None ||
+ ActiveOffloadingKind == Action::OFK_Cuda) {
+ if (JA.isHostOffloading(Action::OFK_Cuda))
----------------
What is this `ActiveOffloadingKind` parameter for? Both values that we actually
pass in here do the exact same thing.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:341-346
@@ -340,8 @@
-
- if (JA.isHostOffloading(Action::OFK_Cuda))
- C.getSingleOffloadToolChain<Action::OFK_Host>()->AddCudaIncludeArgs(
- Args, CmdArgs);
- else if (JA.isDeviceOffloading(Action::OFK_Cuda))
- C.getSingleOffloadToolChain<Action::OFK_Cuda>()->AddCudaIncludeArgs(
- Args, CmdArgs);
-
----------------
The OFK_Host / OFK_Cuda arguments here are reversed from the other two cases.
Is that a bug that's fixed by this change, or a bug that's introduced by this
change? :)
Either way it seems that we're missing test coverage.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22518
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
