yaxunl added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:161 + case CudaArch::GFX902: + return "320"; + case CudaArch::UNKNOWN: ---------------- tra wrote: > Unless you're planning to guarantee 1:1 match to functionality provided by > nvidia's sm_32, it would be prudent to use some other value for the macro so > the source code has a way to tell these GPUs apart. > > Another issue with this approach is that typical use pattern for > __CUDA_ARCH__ is > `#if __CUDA_ARCH__ >= XXX`. I don't expect that we'll always be able to > maintain order across GPU architectures among NVIDIA and AMD GPUs. Perhaps > for HIP compilation it would make more sense to define __CUDA_ARCH__ as 1 > (this should serve as a legacy indication of device-side compilation) and > define __HIP_ARCH__ to indicate which AMD GPU we're compiling for without > accidentally enabling something that was intended for NVIDIA's GPUs only. I think let `__CUDA_ARCH__`==1 for amdgcn is reasonable and I can make that change. On the other hand, I think it may be difficult to define `__HIP_ARCH__` which can sort mixed nvptx/amdgcn GPU's by capability. I do think a well defined `__HIP_ARCH__` would be useful for users. Just need some further discussion how to define it. For now, if there are specific codes for nvptx, it can continue use `__CUDA_ARCH__`. If there are specific codes for amdgcn, it can check predefined amdgpu canonical names, e.g. `__gfx803__`, etc. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D45277 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
