ritter-x2a wrote: > Ok so I'm going to take issue with jumping the constants in a bunch of tests > to gfx8942. Unless we're planning to completely wipe gfx940/1 from the > codebase - which seems extremely unusual and like bad practice ... gfx940 and > 941 are real targets that did really exist and might need code compiled for > them in the future - we should still allow compiling for there targets while > updating tests and such to gfx942. > > And as to the atomics emulation pass ... what's the harm in keeping some old > workaround around?
I'll bring this issue up for discussion in the next compiler team meeting. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125836 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
