On Thu, 2020-11-12 at 06:37 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 06:23, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> > I don't remember the specifics of why we ended up interfacing with Clang
> > this way. What is technically wrong with it, specifically? I don't
> > have any objection to switching to
On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 06:37, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 06:23, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> >
> > I don't remember the specifics of why we ended up interfacing with Clang
> > this way. What is technically wrong with it, specifically? I don't
> > have any objection to switching t
On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 06:23, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>
> I don't remember the specifics of why we ended up interfacing with Clang
> this way. What is technically wrong with it, specifically? I don't
> have any objection to switching to the Driver and Compilation interface,
> nor to translating t
I don't remember the specifics of why we ended up interfacing with Clang
this way. What is technically wrong with it, specifically? I don't
have any objection to switching to the Driver and Compilation interface,
nor to translating the "-cl-denorms-are-zero" option to whatever the
current option
Hey all (mostly Tom).
I've been learning new things today since Matt pushed a patch to clang
to remove "-cl-denorms-are-zero" from cc1 options. I thought this was
a regression or we should hack things to pass a different flag (which
I did locally for testing), but Matt informed me clover is likely
