ABataev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/tools/clang-offload-bundler/ClangOffloadBundler.cpp:888
+ // treat missing host triple as error if we do unbundling.
+ if ((Unbundle && HostTargetNum > 1) || (!Unbundle && HostTargetNum != 1)) {
Error = true;
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> sdmitriev wrote:
> > sdmitriev wrote:
> > > sdmitriev wrote:
> > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > sdmitriev wrote:
> > > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > > I believe, for unbundling we also must check for `!= 1` rather
> > > > > > > than `> 1`. Zero host targets also is not allowed.
> > > > > > But the whole idea of this change is to remove requirement to
> > > > > > provide host triple for unbundling operation. Target bundle(s) can
> > > > > > always be extracted without extracting host, so host bundle is
> > > > > > optional. Therefore zero host targets should not be considered as
> > > > > > error for unbundling.
> > > > > And why do we need this? I think it would be better to check that the
> > > > > requested host triple matches the bundled one using this parameter
> > > > > rather than removing it.
> > > > > And why do we need this?
> > > >
> > > > As I wrote in the summary it is a usability issue. You may for example
> > > > want to extract device object for a particular offload target to
> > > > examine its contents (symbols, sections, etc..), but currently you also
> > > > have to extract host bundle as well even if you do not need it.
> > > >
> > > > > I think it would be better to check that the requested host triple
> > > > > matches the bundled one using this parameter rather than removing it.
> > > >
> > > > So you suggest to check that host bundle name that exists in the fat
> > > > image matches the host bundle name provided it command line if it was
> > > > provided? Should it be an error if names do not match?
> > > >
> > > I have updated patch to do error checking if host bundle name was
> > > provided in command line.
> > @ABataev I believe the host bundle name is now being checked as you
> > suggested. Can you please confirm that it matches your expectations?
> Ok, I got the idea of the patch. BTW, will happen if I request the device
> code for the triple, which is correct, but bundled container does not have
> the device code for this triple?
What about this?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66601/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66601
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
