yaxunl added a comment. In D60620#2067134 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60620#2067134>, @tra wrote:
> Do you expect users to specify these IDs? How do you see it being used in > practice? I think you do need to implement a user-friendly shortcut and > expand it to the detailed offload-id internally. I'm fine with allowing > explicit offload id as a hidden argument, but I don't think it's suitable for > something that will be used by everyone who can't be expected to be aware of > all the gory details of particular GPU features. The good thing about this target id is that it is backward compatible with GPU arch. For common users who are not concerned with specific GPU configurations, they can just use the old GPU arch and nothing changes. This is because GPU arch without features implies default value for these features, which work on all configurations. For advanced users who do need to build for specific GPU configurations, they should already have the knowledge about the name and meaning of these configurations by reading the AMDGPU user guide (http://llvm.org/docs/AMDGPUUsage.html). Therefore a target id in the form of gfx908:xnack+ is not something cryptic to them. On the other hand, an encoded GPU arch like gfx908a is cryptic since it has no meaning at all. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60620/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60620 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
