yaxunl added a comment. In D152882#4422788 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152882#4422788>, @jhuber6 wrote:
> In D152882#4421138 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152882#4421138>, @yaxunl wrote: > >> However, bitcode of target ID gfx90a:xnack+ is allowed to link in bitcode >> of target ID gfx90a as long as they are from different containers. So there >> are two rules about target ID: 1. compatibility rules for objects/bitcode in >> the same container 2. compatibility rules for linking bitcode of different >> target ID's. >> >> we need tests for both rules. > > So I'm wondering why I'm allowed to do `--offload-arch=gfx90a,gfx90a:xnack+`. > Shouldn't that be caught by `getConflictTargetIDCombination`? That seems like > the proper place to diagnose this. clang --offload-arch=gfx90a,gfx90a:xnack+ -c a.hip clang: error: invalid offload arch combinations: 'gfx90a' and 'gfx90a:xnack+' (for a specific processor, a feature should either exist in all offload archs, or not exist in any offload archs) At least it is caught for HIP. OpenMP may not check that. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152882/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152882 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
