yaxunl added a comment. In D92363#2426401 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D92363#2426401>, @tra wrote:
> While I agree that the default GPU choice is not likely to be correct, or > usable, for everyone, but the warning seems to be a half-measure. > If the default is not usable, then it should not be the default. If it's > usable, then we don't need a warning. > > Having a warning would make sense if it were a part of the plan to transition > towards making GPU arch a mandatory option. Is that the case here? > Just a warning is not very useful, IMO. The users would need to specify the > GPU in order to silence it, so why not just require it. There are still valid use cases for not providing GPU arch. For example, users would like to test syntax of a HIP program for which GPU arch does not matter, or users would like to get PCH file where GPU arch does not matter. Another example is cmake may test whether a compiler can compile HIP program without options. Make it a warning allows such uses cases. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92363/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92363 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
