AlexVlx wrote: > > > How much of this is actually different from the existing target info for > > > AMDGCN? Seems like we're doing a lot of redundant stuff like defining > > > macros or features. > > > > > > That's part of the point, it's not actually supposed to differ in those > > particular regards, up to the point where things fork into specific GFXIPs. > > At the same time, there's no feasible way to re-use any of that, at least > > not one that I can see with how targets currently work. If you're > > suggesting that this should actually be based on AMDGPUTargetInfo, that's > > probably not the right way to go since that sets additional things that do > > not work with SPIRV at all. > > Yeah, I was unsure how much of this is a subset. We could pull the common > stuff into some new base class that both targets then inherit from, but it > depends how much code we actually save with that method. I think I agree at > the very least we should try to avoid duplicating the register list.
That's not a bad idea but I *suspect* we'll run into a physical design issue since there doesn't seem to be a natural place to put the shared base - unless you were thinking about a place in particular? We'd probably have to relocate this to the AMDGCN side, and then duplicate the SPIRV bits/details, and at that point we could just re-use/share the reg defs. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89796 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
