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
