asudarsa wrote: > At a minimum I think this change needs more tests. There's a lot of code > added with very minimal test coverage. > > I'm uncomfortable with adding a design that is effectively a workaround with > an unwritten "TODO" to fix it up later, but I also don't want to needlessly > block things. > > From the discourse post and everything I've found reading about the SYCL > tooling, it seems to me like this should really just all be integrated into > LLD and performed with the linking phase. It seems like a huge waste of IO to > read objects, rip out device-specific bits, process that separately, then > read the objects again in another process to link the host bits, then in a > third process read the linked host and device bits and combine them...
Hi @llvm-beanz I will revisit the testing coverage aspect and try to add more tests. Thanks https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112245 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
