Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[SYCL] Enable nonsemantic.shader.debuginfo.200 by default #16120
[SYCL] Enable nonsemantic.shader.debuginfo.200 by default #16120
Changes from all commits
64e408e
cfdb0d9
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I haven't found the proper tests for this, so created a new one. The idea of it that when we decide to support new SPIR-V versions etc - we could modify this tests. Similar test is sycl-spirv-ext.c - but it was created for a bit different purpose and I'd like not to modify it with this patch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This test looks to cover the new offloading model with the changes for
clang-linker-wrapper
. Should an equivalent test be created for the old offloading model behaviors to check the driver defaults?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
added a new test, thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks like in the driver we don't want to do this for FPGA mode, and I don't see that implemented here, and I see at least one check for FPGA in this file:
Should we add that here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can add it. Also the current version of
getTripleBasedSPIRVTransOpts
in ClangLinkerWrapper.cpp doesn't consider FPGA, while the logic must be exactly like in https://github.com/intel/llvm/blob/sycl/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp#L10728 . This should go into a separate patch.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah thats fine for now, i guess lets just make an internal tracker to decide what we're doing with fpga
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If/When we turn on new offloading model by default in our SYCL compilation flow, we will not be using it for FPGA modes. So, it is safe to not add FPGA related logic in ClangLinkerWrapper.
Thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
imo we should remove that one place that checks for fpga, but definitely not related to this pr
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @sarnex. There are some unnecessary FPGA related logic which has snuck into the wrapper. That needs to be cleaned up. In my todo list. :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thx!