[Openmp-commits] [PATCH] D44992: [OpenMP] enable bc file compilation using the latest clang

[Guansong Zhang via Phabricator via Openmp-commits]

guansong added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44992#1062015, @Hahnfeld wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44992#1061982, @guansong wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44992#1061827, @Hahnfeld wrote:
> >
> > > > ! In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44992#1061781, @guansong wrote:
> > > >  I have revert the change, let's continue to discuss how to enable bc file path better.
> > >
> > > You are still not subscribed to `openmp-commits`, so again no commit email! For reference, the commit is https://reviews.llvm.org/rL329576 (and you shouldn't quote git commit hashes, there is a script in LLVM to revert SVN changes from git-svn.)
> >
> >
> > I was trying to use my office email to subscribe the mailing list, it may not be approved yet. How can I check on that? Currently I only get openmp-commits message from my gmail.
> >
> > For reverting, I revert the patch from git, and commit it use git svn dcommit. I guess you are referring the following comment in the log
> >
> > > This reverts commit 6849e31c36d712d97433bca9af39b7a09c8c1207.
> >
> > generated during the process. What is the proper script to use?
>
>
> There is `utils/git-svn/git-svnrevert` in the main LLVM repository.
>
> >> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44992#1061815, @guansong wrote:
> >> 
> >>> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44992#1061781, @guansong wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > I can see the advantage of dynamic testing. But to test everything dynamically maybe tedious. For bc file handling, I consider this is more of a project need to embed LLVM itself, using find_package is more suitable. http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#embedding
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> proper link: http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#embedding-llvm-in-your-project
> >> 
> >> 
> >> We probably don't need to test all flags on their own, we could group the basic flags together. And I still don't get which variable you want to use from that CMake integration?
> > 
> > Unless the grouped flags get accepted or rejected together by the compiler, we won't know which flag caused the failure. For the moment, I intend to use LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR and LLVM_INSTALL_PREFIX/LLVM_BUILD_BINARY_DIR only. But I can see more if we further explore the bc files.
>
> I'd group the current set of flags and add a second check for `-fcuda-rdc`. I'm saying this a third time: There should be no hardcoding of versions!


Why using version is not acceptable? It may not be desirable, but comparing to dynamic testing, it has its own advantages?


Repository:
  rOMP OpenMP

https://reviews.llvm.org/D44992