tra added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/Cuda.cpp:170-182
- // This code prevents IsValid from being set when
- // no libdevice has been found.
- bool allEmpty = true;
- std::string LibDeviceFile;
- for (auto key : LibDeviceMap.keys()) {
- LibDeviceFile = LibDeviceMap.lookup(key);
- if (!LibDeviceFile.empty())
----------------
gtbercea wrote:
> gtbercea wrote:
> > Hahnfeld wrote:
> > > tra wrote:
> > > > Hahnfeld wrote:
> > > > > tra wrote:
> > > > > > I'd keep this code. It appears to serve useful purpose as it
> > > > > > requires CUDA installation to have at least some libdevice library
> > > > > > in it. It gives us a change to find a valid installation, instead
> > > > > > of ailing some time later when we ask for a libdevice file and fail
> > > > > > because there are none.
> > > > > We had some internal discussions about this after I submitted the
> > > > > patch here.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main question is: Do we want to support CUDA installations
> > > > > without libdevice and are there use cases for that? I'd say that the
> > > > > user should be able to use a toolchain without libdevice together
> > > > > with `-nocudalib`.
> > > > Sounds reasonable. How about keeping the code but putting it under
> > > > `if(!hasArg(nocudalib))`?
> > > >
> > > Ok, I'll do that in a separate patch and keep the code here for now.
> > The problem with nocudalib is that if for example you write a test, which
> > looks to verify some device facing feature that requires a libdevice to be
> > found (so you don't want to use nocudalib), it will probably work on your
> > machine which has the correct CUDA setup but fail on another machine which
> > does not (which is where you want to use nocudalib). You can see the
> > contradiction there.
> Just to be clear I am arguing for keeping this code :)
@gtbercea: I'm not sure I follow your example. If you're talking about clang
tests, we do have fake CUDA installation setup under test/Driver/Inputs which
removes dependency on whatever CUDA you may or may not have installed on your
machine. I also don't see a contradiction -- you you do need libdevice, it
makes no point picking a broken CUDA installation which does not have any
libdevice files. If you explicitly tell compiler that you don't need libdevice,
that would make CUDA w/o libdevice acceptable. With --cuda-path you do have a
way to tell clang which installation you want it to use. What do I miss?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38883
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
