On 30.03.22 10:03, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 3/29/22 16:47, Tobias Burnus wrote:
I think it would be useful to have additionally some wording for the
(new in GCC 12/new since today) macros,
[...]
The macro is defined also if the option is not specified, so I think
this formulation is not 100% clear in that aspect. I've reformulated
to fix that.
Fine. (It was a copy, paste + modify from elsewhere.)
Also, I took out the detail of how the value is determined, since
we're just following __CUDA_ARCH__ rather than defining our own policy.
OK. While I am not sure that it is obvious, also the example makes clear
what value to expect. Combining the two, I concur that the details
aren't required.
Any comments?
LGTM.
Tobias
PS: Regarding the sm_30 -> sm_35 change (before in this email thread).
That was not meant to be in the the .texi file, but just as item to
remember when updating the wwwdocs / gcc-12/changes.html document.
It was/is also not completely clear to me whether there is still this
CUDA 11.x issue of not supporting sm_30 (only sm_35 and higher) or not.
I assume it still exists but is mitigated at
compiler-usage/libgomp-runtime-usage time as PTX ISA now defaults to 6.0
such that CUDA – but shouldn't it still see sm_30 instead of sm_35 in
this case?
If so, I think it will still show up when using either explicitly PTX
ISA 3.1 or when building GCC itself and all of the following holds:
nvptx-tools is installed, CUDA (in a too new version) is installed
(ptxas in $PATH) , and the the pending pull request nvptx-tools has not
been applied that ignores the non-explicit '--verify' when .target sm_xx
or PTX ISA .version is not supported by ptxas.
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas
Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht
München, HRB 106955
