Re: [PATCH] Remove PTX link option

[Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>]

Hi!

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:46:17 +0300 (MSK), Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > And CU_JIT_TARGET / CU_TARGET_COMPUTE_30 requests JITting only on sm_30 and
> > nothing else, or just on sm_30 or later, something else?
> 
> It requests to produce binary code targeting sm_30 devices.  Newer (Maxwell)
> devices use a different hw instruction set, so they simply cannot execute
> binary code emitted/jitted for sm_30.

ACK.

> > This really should be reviewed by somebody familiar with CUDA more than
> > myself.
> 
> FWIW this is my patch -- I developed it as part of OpenMP offloading work, and
> I still think that the patch is doing the right thing.

ACK, as I recently suggested/requested in
<http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3C87h9j9gq2m.fsf%40kepler.schwinge.homeip.net%3E>.

> (and I don't understand what's going on with lack of Changelog showing
> attribution

No offense intended I think -- I guess Jim simply forgot to include the
ChangeLog update in this submission; you're certainly listed in his
gomp-4_0-branch commit r232142,
<http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3C568ED528.6080200%40codesourcery.com%3E>.

> I also hoped I'd be Cc'ed on this)

Right.


Alexander, would you please also submit a fix for that for nvptx-tools'
nvptx-run.c?  (Or want me to do that?)


Going further, for both GCC's libgomp and nvptx-tools' nvptx-run, would
it make sense to have a way to restrict code generation to a specific SM
version for testing purposes?  For example with a compiler flag that then
stores this information in the executable (how?), or NVPTX_RUN_CC, and
GOMP_NVPTX_CC environment variables (or, *_SM?), respectively?


GrÃÃe
 Thomas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature