Skip to content

[Driver][SYCL] Update default offload device settings with -fsycl #14208

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: sycl
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mdtoguchi
Copy link
Contributor

When building with -fsycl, allow for default spir64 JIT device targets to be built by default. This target will also be built along side any AOT targets. For example:

clang++ -fsycl -c file.cpp // builds for spir64
clang++ -fsycl -fsycl-targets=intel_gpu_pvc // builds for spir64
// and spir64_gen pvc

Also introduces -fno-spirv for users who do not require the spir64 target to be generated. The use of -fno-spirv is default for -fintelfpga usage.

When building with -fsycl, allow for default spir64 JIT device targets
to be built by default.  This target will also be built along side any
AOT targets.  For example:

clang++ -fsycl -c file.cpp   // builds for spir64
clang++ -fsycl -fsycl-targets=intel_gpu_pvc // builds for spir64
                                            // and spir64_gen pvc

Also introduces -fno-spirv for users who do not require the spir64
target to be generated.  The use of -fno-spirv is default for
-fintelfpga usage.
@@ -446,6 +446,12 @@ and not recommended to use in production environment.
When this option is used in conjunction with -fsycl, the driver will link
against an alternate form of libsycl, libsycl-preview.

**`-fno-spirv`**
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This description seems to be a bit misleading. It seems to suggest that users should use this option for all AOT target compilations. May be we can drop 'when targeting AOT devices'?

@asudarsa
Copy link
Contributor

I do not think a review is required from me. But I was curious if this support is available on the new offloading side as well? Thanks

@mdtoguchi
Copy link
Contributor Author

I do not think a review is required from me. But I was curious if this support is available on the new offloading side as well? Thanks

@asudarsa, yes, this is available with the new offloading model.

Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is stale because it has been open 180 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be automatically closed in 30 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Dec 18, 2024
@mdtoguchi mdtoguchi removed the Stale label Dec 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants