hfinkel added a comment. ...
>>>>> >>>> >>>> Okay, good, this is exactly where I was going when I said I was worried >>>> about generalization. -march seems like one of many flags I might want to >>>> pass to the target compilation. Moreover, it doesn't seem special in what >>>> regard. >>>> >>>> We have -Xclang and -mllvm, etc. to pass flags through to other stages of >>>> compilation. Could we do something similar here? Maybe something like: >>>> ``-Xopenmp-target:openmp-powerpc64le-ibm-linux-gnu -march=pwr7``. That's >>>> unfortunately long, but if there's only one target, we could omit the >>>> triple? >>> >>> The triple could be omitted, absolutely. >>> >>> If you have the following: >>> >>> -fopenmp-targets=openmp-powerpc64le-ibm-linux-gnu >>> ``-Xopenmp-target:openmp-powerpc64le-ibm-linux-gnu -march=pwr7`` >>> ``-Xopenmp-target:openmp-powerpc64le-ibm-linux-gnu -march=pwr8`` >>> >>> This would end up having a toolchain called for each one of the >>> -Xopenmp-target sets of flags even though a single triple was specified >>> under the -fopenmp-targets. Would this be ok? >> >> Why? That does not sound desirable. And could you even use these multiple >> outputs? I think you'd want to pass all of the arguments for each target >> triple to the one toolchain invocation for that target triple. Is that >> possible? > > I agree, I don't think that is something we want (i.e. having one triple lead > to two toolchains), with the current flags you can't do that today. I wanted > to check with you though that's why i mentioned it. > > I think appending all options for a particular triple together is more > desirable. Good, let's do that. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D34784 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
