[PATCH] D96906: [AMDGPU] gfx90a support

[Konstantin Zhuravlyov via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

kzhuravl added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td:3097-3101
+def mtgsplit : Flag<["-"], "mtgsplit">, Group<m_amdgpu_Features_Group>,
+  HelpText<"Enable threadgroup split execution mode (AMDGPU only)">;
+def mno_tgsplit : Flag<["-"], "mno-tgsplit">, Group<m_amdgpu_Features_Group>,
+  HelpText<"Disable threadgroup split execution mode (AMDGPU only)">;
+
----------------
kzhuravl wrote:
> kzhuravl wrote:
> > rampitec wrote:
> > > kzhuravl wrote:
> > > > kzhuravl wrote:
> > > > > tra wrote:
> > > > > > We have `BoolFOption` to generate `-fsomething` and `-fno-something`
> > > > > The reason we use m_amdgpu_Features_Group is it is getting transformed to target features (-mtgsplit to +tgsplit, mno-tgsplit to -tgsplit. For example, tgsplit target feature in AMDGPU backend:
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/AMDGPU.td#L157
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does BoolFOption get translated to target features as well?
> > > > Quickly glancing over Options.td, BoolFOption is in f_group, and does not get automatically converted to target-features
> > > We could probably create similar BoolMOption. This is not only tgsplit, there are plenty of such binary options around.
> > agreed, seems like a good choice given there is BoolFOption, BoolGOption
> but it will still need to be in m_amdgpu_Features_Group because https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/AMDGPU.cpp#L403 unless we want to switch away from that. so maybe make a group an optional, last template parameter to BoolMOption?
Other targets also have its own corresponding groups: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td#L151


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D96906/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D96906