This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL277537: [CUDA] Do not allow using NVPTX target for host
compilation. (authored by tra).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23042?vs=66560&id=66578#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://rev
tra marked an inline comment as done.
tra added a comment.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23042
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tra updated the summary for this revision.
tra updated this revision to Diff 66560.
tra added a comment.
Added a comment describing why we delibrartly error out on use of NVPTX for
host compilation.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23042
Files:
include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticDriverKinds.td
lib/Dri
tra added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23042#503869, @jlebar wrote:
> > Restore assertions for presence of -march flag.
>
>
> We don't need an explicit assertion in TranslateArgs?
Nope. The action we create for fatbin uses CudaToolChain, but has nullptr
BoundArch and there's no way
jlebar accepted this revision.
jlebar added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
> Restore assertions for presence of -march flag.
We don't need an explicit assertion in TranslateArgs?
Comment at: lib/Driver/Driver.cpp:1412
@@ +1411,3 @@
+ assert(HostTC
tra updated this revision to Diff 66505.
tra added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: klimek.
Abort pipeline constructions early if we detect that NVPTX is used for host
compilation.
Restore assertions for presence of -march flag.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23042
Files:
include/clang/Basic
tra added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains.cpp:4834
@@ -4831,2 +4833,3 @@
+getDriver().Diag(diag::err_drv_cuda_nvptx_host);
}
return DAL;
jlebar wrote:
> IRL we talked about putting an assert() here and bailing out earlier. Does
> tha
jlebar added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains.cpp:4834
@@ -4831,2 +4833,3 @@
+getDriver().Diag(diag::err_drv_cuda_nvptx_host);
}
return DAL;
IRL we talked about putting an assert() here and bailing out earlier. Does
that not work?
My
tra created this revision.
tra added a reviewer: jlebar.
tra added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
It does not make sense and violates enough assumptions in the code to crash
compiler.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23042
Files:
include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticDriverKinds.td
lib/Driver/ToolChains.cpp
