yaxunl added a comment. In D93258#2453815 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93258#2453815>, @JonChesterfield wrote:
> In D93258#2453724 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93258#2453724>, @thakis wrote: > >> reverted in c9ede6f3367a627baeef78f30d18078af9a4ffca >> <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGc9ede6f3367a627baeef78f30d18078af9a4ffca> for now > > Thanks! Just saw the CI emails come through. I didn't realise code object > version was hardcoded across various tests. That's a weird thing to do when > it has no effect on the generated IR. > > @yaxunl This would never pass the gerrit testing. AMD internal has moved to > code object v4 so changing the default to v3 will break internal tests that > assume that. The hsa runtime that can load v4 objects hasn't shipped, either > in rocm or as source in github, and the backend that generates v4 object > files also hasn't shipped, so defaulting to v4 in the trunk front end is a > poor choice. Can they use rocm release branches of llvm/clang with the corresponding rocm release? As llvm/clang trunk is like the development branch, it is understandable that they may contain new changes that may temporarily not working with previous rocm releases. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93258/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93258 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
