From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E85E3857017 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 12:10:49 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 0E85E3857017 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1662984648; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=rlD2oTN+jBO2Xe3lggTm0yQ2VKbLr4kf554xkDCrWmE=; b=eiMf6QHa3fkgG5urUPvWGU1S3jUON/98qBCHiob5JPHQt0buCH90juP1FZHUgZMyo8URrH vyIIO/SvDBO3be8l78aAEIEqGY/syydQHbjuWCVopSqNMVPYVwsi+9hONmVi5VTh3BbsXm fx3msHV8J60a3O9j86F1vKUJ9RtgQ1A= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-484-AoPv72fVPjeklYEV5PstMA-1; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 08:10:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: AoPv72fVPjeklYEV5PstMA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 406428032F6; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 12:10:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.41]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F00EE2166B26; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 12:10:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 28CCAiEv172248 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:10:44 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 28CCAgn0172247; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:10:42 +0200 Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:10:42 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Tobias Burnus Cc: gcc-patches , Tom de Vries Subject: Re: [Patch] nvptx/mkoffload.cc: Warn instead of error when reverse offload is not possible (was: Re: [Patch][2/3][v2] nvptx: libgomp+mkoffload.cc: Prepare for reverse offload fn lookup) Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <40563a1c-49ef-a185-3c01-9f717cd48fc5@codesourcery.com> <8301889b-64f9-8c60-15ca-2fa1fc495791@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 02:02:16PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > + { > + warning_at (input_location, 0, > + "% requires at " > + "least % for %<-march=%> - disabling " > + "offload-code generation for this device type"); I wonder whether it shouldn't talk about -foffload-options=nvptx-none=-march= instead of just -march=. Otherwise LGTM. Jakub