On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 3:20 PM Tobias Burnus <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andrew Stubbs wrote: > > Although, I don't know why we want to chase all these when we have > > gfx11-generic and the features aren't different (and we can't test it). > > Besides the "for completeness",
I think that's reasonable. > I think it is mainly for users of > those GPUs that just pass the argument to the compiler. And instead > of > > gcn mkoffload: error: unrecognized argument in option ‘-march=gfx1154’ > > > it is much more helpful to get the following error message: > > gcn mkoffload: fatal error: GCC was built without library support for > ‘-march=gfx1154’; consider compiling for the associated generic > architecture ‘-march=gfx11-generic’ instead Can we make that gcn mkoffload: note: GCC was built without library support for '-march=gfx1154'; using architecture '-march=gfx11-generic' instead aka, fall back to gfx11-generic automagically for all gfx11*? Or do you consider that too dangerous (well, not more than this untested patch?) Is there currently _any_ benefit to using a special gfx11* target over gfx11-generic? Richard. > > Tobias >
