yaxunl added a comment. In D150998#4403416 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150998#4403416>, @jhuber6 wrote:
> In D150998#4403401 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150998#4403401>, @yaxunl wrote: > >> In D150998#4403359 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150998#4403359>, @jhuber6 >> wrote: >> >>> Can we use this approach for now and land this? It makes the "new driver" >>> less broken than it currently is as it supports target ID compilation in >>> the general term. Fixing the merging rules will be a rather large overhaul >>> so I'd like this to work in the meantime. >>> >>> This patch allows `--offload-arch=gfx90a:xnack+` to work. It does not fix >>> if the user links in a library that has `--offload-arch=gfx90a:xnack-` as >>> well. >> >> can we add a test to make sure `--offload-arch=gfx90a:xnack+` and >> `--offload-arch=gfx90a:xnack-` work together? It is a very common use case >> for HIP. > > With the current patch, they would both be linked together and it would > probably set the `xnack` value to the last one that showed up in the link > list. E.g. > > clang -xhip a.c --offload-arch=gfx90a:xnack+ --offload-new-driver -fgpu-rdc > clang -xhip b.c --offload-arch=gfx90a:xnack- --offload-new-driver -fgpu-rdc > clang --offload-link a.o b.o > > Would result in a.o and b.o getting linked together with `xnack-` set as the > backend attribute. what happens to clang -xhip a.c --offload-arch=gfx90a:xnack+ --offload-arch=gfx90a:xnack- --offload-new-driver -fgpu-rdc clang -xhip b.c --offload-arch=gfx90a:xnack+ --offload-arch=gfx90a:xnack- --offload-new-driver -fgpu-rdc clang --offload-link a.o b.o Basically gfx90a:xnack+ and gfx90a:xnack- need to be treated as distinct GPU arch's and the fat binary should contain different code objects for them. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150998/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150998 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
