On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 06:37, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 06:23, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> wrote: > > > > I don't remember the specifics of why we ended up interfacing with Clang > > this way. What is technically wrong with it, specifically? I don't > > have any objection to switching to the Driver and Compilation interface, > > nor to translating the "-cl-denorms-are-zero" option to whatever the > > current option name is so the current Clang interfacing keeps working. > > Currently we pass a bunch of options from the user directly to the > clang cc1 internals. Up until recently this wasn't a problem as the > cc1 just happened to allow this and the options matched up. But this > was only ever a happy accident. > > Now the options don't match up. What you are meant to do is pass the > options to the clang Driver and it gives you back a cc1 job which has > the cc1 specific arguments for what you passed to the driver. > > So Driver sees "-cl-denorms-are-zero" and gives us back a compilation > job for cc1 which has some internal -f flags in it. > > Otherwise clover has to keep track of the internal cc1 flags and remap > things itself which might not be easily discoverable moving forward.
I hacked a bit of a PoC up today for this https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/airlied/mesa/-/commit/0981cd24ae6653ef058cbcbb5465f65d0cfdae65 Will try and make it better. Dave. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
