Hi Andrew, all,
On 01/12/2022 13:45, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On 01/12/2022 11:10, Paul-Antoine Arras wrote:
>> +      if 
>> (TARGET_FIJI)                                                         \
>> +    builtin_define 
>> ("__FIJI__");                                           \
>> +      else if 
>> (TARGET_VEGA10)                                                  \
>> +    builtin_define 
>> ("__VEGA10__");                                         \
>> +      else if 
>> (TARGET_VEGA20)                                                  \
>> +    builtin_define 
>> ("__VEGA20__");                                         \
>> +      else if 
>> (TARGET_GFX908)                                                  \
>> +    builtin_define 
>> ("__GFX908__");                                         \
>> +      else if 
>> (TARGET_GFX90a)                                                  \
>> +    builtin_define 
>> ("__GFX90a__");                                         \
>> +  } while (0)
>>
> 
> I don't think it makes sense to say __VEGA10__ when the user asked for 
> -march=gfx900.
> 
> This whole naming thing is a bit of a mess already, so I think we'd do 
> better to either keep the same names throughout or match what LLVM does 
> (since it got to these first).
> 
> Please use "__gfx900__" etc. (lower case).
> 
> [...]
> 
> P.S. If you want to split the patch into the GCN bits and the bits that 
> depend on metadirectives then we can apply the first part to mainline 
> right away.

I believe this patch addresses your comments regarding the GCN bits.

The new builtins are consistent with the LLVM naming convention (lower 
case, canonical name). For gfx803, I also kept '__fiji__' to be 
consistent with -march=fiji.

Is it OK for mainline?

Thanks,
-- 
PA