================
@@ -384,12 +408,20 @@ HLSLToolChain::HLSLToolChain(const Driver &D, const
llvm::Triple &Triple,
if (Args.hasArg(options::OPT_dxc_validator_path_EQ))
getProgramPaths().push_back(
Args.getLastArgValue(options::OPT_dxc_validator_path_EQ).str());
+ if (Args.hasArg(options::OPT_spirv_validator_path_EQ))
+ getProgramPaths().push_back(
+ Args.getLastArgValue(options::OPT_spirv_validator_path_EQ).str());
}
Tool *clang::driver::toolchains::HLSLToolChain::getTool(
Action::ActionClass AC) const {
switch (AC) {
case Action::BinaryAnalyzeJobClass:
+ if (getTriple().isSPIRV()) {
+ if (!SPIRVValidator)
+ SPIRVValidator.reset(new tools::hlsl::SPIRV_Validator(*this));
+ return SPIRVValidator.get();
+ }
if (!Validator)
Validator.reset(new tools::hlsl::Validator(*this));
return Validator.get();
----------------
bogner wrote:
We can only ever have one validator, and the spirv validator logic needs to
look a tthe triple anyway. I wonder if it would make more sense to just have
one `hlsl::Validator` type, and have it invoke spirv-val or dxv as appropriate
depending on the target.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/188150
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
