jhuber6 wrote:
> > I guess I should just manually pass the optimization level at `O2` for now.
>
> Would -O3 still pass through?
Should, the behavior that was apparently passing was using `-O2`.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102972
___
cf
jdenny-ornl wrote:
> I guess I should just manually pass the optimization level at `O2` for now.
Would -O3 still pass through?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102972
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.
jhuber6 wrote:
I'm very familiar with that error message, it's
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/64863. I guess I should just
manually pass the optimization level at `O2` for now.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102972
___
cfe-com
jdenny-ornl wrote:
Seems like it does what it intends to do. Thanks for working on it.
However, there's a side effect. Now that -O1 gets passed along, sometimes it
triggers an assert fail for AMD GPU:
```
ld.lld: /tmp/llvm/llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/AMDGPUResourceUsageAnalysis.cpp:151:
virtual
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-driver
Author: Joseph Huber (jhuber6)
Changes
Summary;
Now that we use the linker to do LTO / device linking, we need to inform
the `clang` invocation to use `-flto` so it forwards arguments like
`-On` correctly.
---
Fu
https://github.com/jhuber6 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102972
Summary;
Now that we use the linker to do LTO / device linking, we need to inform
the `clang` invocation to use `-flto` so it forwards arguments like
`-On` correctly.
>From b89e843bcca89e53552fead5a8b88e5046c37
