[Lldb-commits] [lld] [lldb] [clang-tools-extra] [clang] [libcxx] [libc] [flang] [llvm] [compiler-rt] [NVPTX] Add support for -march=native in standalone NVPTX (PR #79373)

2024-01-25 Thread Artem Belevich via lldb-commits
https://github.com/Artem-B approved this pull request. LGTM, as we can only handle a single GPU target during compilation. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79373 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org

[Lldb-commits] [libcxx] [flang] [lldb] [clang] [clang-tools-extra] [lld] [llvm] [compiler-rt] [libc] [NVPTX] Add support for -march=native in standalone NVPTX (PR #79373)

2024-01-25 Thread Artem Belevich via lldb-commits
Artem-B wrote: > This method of compilation is not like CUDA, so we can't target all the GPUs > at the same time. I think this is the key fact I was missing. If the patch is only for a standalone compilation which does not do multi-GPU compilation in principle, then your approach makes sense.

[Lldb-commits] [clang] [lld] [llvm] [libc] [flang] [libcxx] [compiler-rt] [clang-tools-extra] [lldb] [NVPTX] Add support for -march=native in standalone NVPTX (PR #79373)

2024-01-25 Thread Artem Belevich via lldb-commits
Artem-B wrote: > I think the semantics of native on other architectures are clear enough here. I don't think we have the same idea about that. Let's spell it out, so there's no confusion. [GCC manual](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/x86-Options.html#index-march-16) says: > Using -march=na

[Lldb-commits] [clang-tools-extra] [libc] [llvm] [compiler-rt] [lld] [libcxx] [lldb] [flang] [clang] [NVPTX] Add support for -march=native in standalone NVPTX (PR #79373)

2024-01-25 Thread Artem Belevich via lldb-commits
Artem-B wrote: > This is what we already do for `--offload-arch=native` on CUDA, but this is > somewhat tangential. I've updated this patch to present the warning in the > case of multiply GPUs being detected, so I don't think there's a concern here > with the user being confused. If they have

[Lldb-commits] [libcxx] [pstl] [lld] [llvm] [lldb] [clang] [libc] [compiler-rt] [mlir] [clang-tools-extra] [openmp] [Driver] Test ignored target-specific options for AMDGPU/NVPTX (PR #79222)

2024-01-24 Thread Artem Belevich via lldb-commits
https://github.com/Artem-B approved this pull request. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79222 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [libcxx] [pstl] [lld] [llvm] [lldb] [clang] [libc] [compiler-rt] [mlir] [clang-tools-extra] [openmp] [Driver] Test ignored target-specific options for AMDGPU/NVPTX (PR #79222)

2024-01-24 Thread Artem Belevich via lldb-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +/// Some target-specific options are ignored for GPU, so %clang exits with code 0. +// DEFINE: %{check} = %clang -### -c -mcmodel=medium Artem-B wrote: In this particular case, the changes we test (and the error messages) were originating in th

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [pstl] [llvm] [mlir] [libc] [compiler-rt] [libcxx] [openmp] [clang-tools-extra] [clang] [lld] [Driver] Test ignored target-specific options for AMDGPU/NVPTX (PR #79222)

2024-01-24 Thread Artem Belevich via lldb-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +/// Some target-specific options are ignored for GPU, so %clang exits with code 0. +// DEFINE: %{check} = %clang -### -c -mcmodel=medium Artem-B wrote: > Also, what exactly are we checking here? With `-###` CC1 sub-compilations do > not run and

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [NVPTX] Improve lowering of v4i8 (PR #67866)

2023-10-06 Thread Artem Belevich via lldb-commits
Artem-B wrote: Found another issue. We merge four independent byte loads with `align 1` into a 32-bit load, which fails at runtime on misaligned pointers. ``` %t0 = type { [17 x i8] } @shared_storage = linkonce_odr local_unnamed_addr addrspace(3) global %t0 undef, align 1 define <4 x i8> @i