tra added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/Cuda.cpp:170-182
- // This code prevents IsValid from being set when
- // no libdevice has been found.
- bool allEmpty = true;
- std::string LibDeviceFile;
- for (auto key : LibDeviceMap.keys()) {
- LibDeviceFile = LibDeviceMap.lookup(key);
- if (!LibDeviceFile.empty())
----------------
tra wrote:
> gtbercea wrote:
> > gtbercea wrote:
> > > Hahnfeld wrote:
> > > > tra wrote:
> > > > > Hahnfeld wrote:
> > > > > > tra wrote:
> > > > > > > I'd keep this code. It appears to serve useful purpose as it
> > > > > > > requires CUDA installation to have at least some libdevice
> > > > > > > library in it. It gives us a change to find a valid
> > > > > > > installation, instead of ailing some time later when we ask for a
> > > > > > > libdevice file and fail because there are none.
> > > > > > We had some internal discussions about this after I submitted the
> > > > > > patch here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The main question is: Do we want to support CUDA installations
> > > > > > without libdevice and are there use cases for that? I'd say that
> > > > > > the user should be able to use a toolchain without libdevice
> > > > > > together with `-nocudalib`.
> > > > > Sounds reasonable. How about keeping the code but putting it under
> > > > > `if(!hasArg(nocudalib))`?
> > > > >
> > > > Ok, I'll do that in a separate patch and keep the code here for now.
> > > The problem with nocudalib is that if for example you write a test, which
> > > looks to verify some device facing feature that requires a libdevice to
> > > be found (so you don't want to use nocudalib), it will probably work on
> > > your machine which has the correct CUDA setup but fail on another machine
> > > which does not (which is where you want to use nocudalib). You can see
> > > the contradiction there.
> > Just to be clear I am arguing for keeping this code :)
> @gtbercea: I'm not sure I follow your example. If you're talking about clang
> tests, we do have fake CUDA installation setup under test/Driver/Inputs which
> removes dependency on whatever CUDA you may or may not have installed on your
> machine. I also don't see a contradiction -- you you do need libdevice, it
> makes no point picking a broken CUDA installation which does not have any
> libdevice files. If you explicitly tell compiler that you don't need
> libdevice, that would make CUDA w/o libdevice acceptable. With --cuda-path
> you do have a way to tell clang which installation you want it to use. What
> do I miss?
>
>
Ah, you were arguing with Hahnfeld@'s -nocudalib example. Then I guess we're in
violent agreement.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38883
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
