[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-16 Thread Saiyedul Islam via cfe-commits
https://github.com/saiislam closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92290 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-16 Thread Saiyedul Islam via cfe-commits
saiislam wrote: Thanks for the review and comments. Closing the PR. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92290 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread Shilei Tian via cfe-commits
shiltian wrote: > > > > If `-march` is the wrong option then let's start deprecating it and > > > > remove it altogether in the next llvm release. But, as long as it is > > > > here, it should be equivalent to `--offload-arch`. > > > > > > > > > Honestly not a bad idea. I could make a patch w

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread Joseph Huber via cfe-commits
jhuber6 wrote: > > > If `-march` is the wrong option then let's start deprecating it and > > > remove it altogether in the next llvm release. But, as long as it is > > > here, it should be equivalent to `--offload-arch`. > > > > > > Honestly not a bad idea. I could make a patch warning users

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread Saiyedul Islam via cfe-commits
saiislam wrote: > > If `-march` is the wrong option then let's start deprecating it and remove > > it altogether in the next llvm release. But, as long as it is here, it > > should be equivalent to `--offload-arch`. > > Honestly not a bad idea. I could make a patch warning users to use > `--o

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread Joseph Huber via cfe-commits
jhuber6 wrote: > If `-march` is the wrong option then let's start deprecating it and remove it > altogether in the next llvm release. But, as long as it is here, it should be > equivalent to `--offload-arch`. Honestly not a bad idea. I could make a patch warning users to use `--offload-arch`

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread Saiyedul Islam via cfe-commits
saiislam wrote: > > > I don't think we want to support this. `-march` was the wrong option to > > > use in the first place, and upstream LLVM never supported specifying > > > multiple device images with `-march` so there isn't a legacy argument in > > > trunk. However, AOMP did support this an

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread Joseph Huber via cfe-commits
jhuber6 wrote: > > I don't think we want to support this. `-march` was the wrong option to use > > in the first place, and upstream LLVM never supported specifying multiple > > device images with `-march` so there isn't a legacy argument in trunk. > > However, AOMP did support this and if it's

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread Saiyedul Islam via cfe-commits
saiislam wrote: > I don't think we want to support this. `-march` was the wrong option to use > in the first place, and upstream LLVM never supported specifying multiple > device images with `-march` so there isn't a legacy argument in trunk. > However, AOMP did support this and if it's deemed

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread Joseph Huber via cfe-commits
jhuber6 wrote: I don't think we want to support this. `-march` was the wrong option to use in the first place, and upstream LLVM never supported specifying multiple device images with `-march` so there isn't a legacy argument in trunk. However, AOMP did support this and if it's deemed too disr

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread via cfe-commits
github-actions[bot] wrote: :warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code. :warning: You can test this locally with the following command: ``bash git-clang-format --diff 9bbefb7f600019c9d7025281132dd160729bfff2 a6611634d03d102a8b69df8ff20d324efd81ae48 --

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread Saiyedul Islam via cfe-commits
saiislam wrote: It will fix tests like: [targetid_multi_image](https://github.com/ROCm/aomp/tree/aomp-dev/test/smoke/targetid_multi_image) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92290 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread via cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Saiyedul Islam (saiislam) Changes Legacy toolchain to handle multiple target architectures specified using `-Xopenmp-target= -march=` was only processing a single architecture. This patch also fixes the use of comma to specify

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread via cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-amdgpu Author: Saiyedul Islam (saiislam) Changes Legacy toolchain to handle multiple target architectures specified using `-Xopenmp-target= -march=` was only processing a single architecture. This patch also fixes the use of comma t

[clang] [Clang][OpenMP] Fix multi arch compilation for -march option (PR #92290)

2024-05-15 Thread Saiyedul Islam via cfe-commits
https://github.com/saiislam created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92290 Legacy toolchain to handle multiple target architectures specified using `-Xopenmp-target= -march=` was only processing a single architecture. This patch also fixes the use of comma to specify multiple archs for