================
@@ -68,25 +68,25 @@ TEST(DxcModeTest, TargetProfileValidation) {
IntrusiveRefCntPtr<DiagnosticOptions> DiagOpts = new DiagnosticOptions();
DiagnosticsEngine Diags(DiagID, &*DiagOpts, DiagConsumer);
- validateTargetProfile("-Tvs_6_0", "dxil--shadermodel6.0-vertex",
+ validateTargetProfile("-Tvs_6_0", "dxilv1.0--shadermodel6.0-vertex",
InMemoryFileSystem, Diags);
- validateTargetProfile("-Ths_6_1", "dxil--shadermodel6.1-hull",
+ validateTargetProfile("-Ths_6_1", "dxilv1.1--shadermodel6.1-hull",
InMemoryFileSystem, Diags);
- validateTargetProfile("-Tds_6_2", "dxil--shadermodel6.2-domain",
+ validateTargetProfile("-Tds_6_2", "dxilv1.2--shadermodel6.2-domain",
InMemoryFileSystem, Diags);
- validateTargetProfile("-Tds_6_2", "dxil--shadermodel6.2-domain",
+ validateTargetProfile("-Tds_6_2", "dxilv1.2--shadermodel6.2-domain",
InMemoryFileSystem, Diags);
- validateTargetProfile("-Tgs_6_3", "dxil--shadermodel6.3-geometry",
+ validateTargetProfile("-Tgs_6_3", "dxilv1.3--shadermodel6.3-geometry",
InMemoryFileSystem, Diags);
- validateTargetProfile("-Tps_6_4", "dxil--shadermodel6.4-pixel",
+ validateTargetProfile("-Tps_6_4", "dxilv1.4--shadermodel6.4-pixel",
InMemoryFileSystem, Diags);
- validateTargetProfile("-Tcs_6_5", "dxil--shadermodel6.5-compute",
+ validateTargetProfile("-Tcs_6_5", "dxilv1.5--shadermodel6.5-compute",
InMemoryFileSystem, Diags);
- validateTargetProfile("-Tms_6_6", "dxil--shadermodel6.6-mesh",
+ validateTargetProfile("-Tms_6_6", "dxilv1.6--shadermodel6.6-mesh",
InMemoryFileSystem, Diags);
- validateTargetProfile("-Tas_6_7", "dxil--shadermodel6.7-amplification",
+ validateTargetProfile("-Tas_6_7", "dxilv1.7--shadermodel6.7-amplification",
InMemoryFileSystem, Diags);
- validateTargetProfile("-Tlib_6_x", "dxil--shadermodel6.15-library",
+ validateTargetProfile("-Tlib_6_8", "dxilv1.8--shadermodel6.8-library",
----------------
bharadwajy wrote:
> There is, in fact, a lib_6_x target that maps to a more unconstrained offline
> linking target (with minor version = 15) which is not expected to be
> compatible between compiler versions. Do we care to model that in clang at
> this time? This change removes this target, so I just wanted to know if that
> was a deliberate decision.
What is the expected DXIL version of DXIL Ops generated using the target
profile `lib_6_x`?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89823
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
