jhuber6 added a comment. In D152882#4421138 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152882#4421138>, @yaxunl wrote:
> However, bitcode of target ID gfx90a:xnack+ is allowed to link in bitcode of > target ID gfx90a as long as they are from different containers. So there are > two rules about target ID: 1. compatibility rules for objects/bitcode in the > same container 2. compatibility rules for linking bitcode of different target > ID's. > > we need tests for both rules. So I'm wondering why I'm allowed to do `--offload-arch=gfx90a,gfx90a:xnack+`. Shouldn't that be caught by `getConflictTargetIDCombination`? That seems like the proper place to diagnose this. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152882/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152882 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
