tra added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/OffloadBundler.cpp:1008
+ auto Output = Worklist.begin();
+ for (auto E = Worklist.end(); Output != E; Output++) {
+ if (isCodeObjectCompatible(
----------------
saiislam wrote:
> tra wrote:
> > The patch description implies that there are at least two classes of
> > compatible objects -- the ones that match exactly and the ones that are not
> > exact match, but are still compatible.
> >
> >
> > Here we're iterating until we find the first compatible object. What if we
> > also have the object that matches exactly, but it's further down the list.
> > Is that a problem that we may pick one or the other, depending on the order
> > they happen to appear in the worklist? It would be good to add a test case
> > for this scenario.
> Though it looks plausible, such a case is not possible.
>
> From [[ https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangOffloadBundler.html#bundle-entry-id
> | Clang Offload Bundler's Documentation]]
> > If there is an entry with a target feature specified as Any, then all
> > entries must specify that target feature as Any for the same processor.
>
>
Does it mean that the bundler is supposed to error out if I pass
`-targets=hip-amdgcn-amd-amdhsa--gfx906,hip-amdgcn-amd-amdhsa--gfx906:xnack-` ?
I've just tried it with a bundler built in recent LLVM tree and it accepts such
a mis of targets without complaining.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134546/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134546
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
