[PATCH v2 1/4] Update list of supported AMDGPU architectures

[Jan Beulich]

On 08.05.2026 12:17, Lancelot SIX wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/05/2026 11:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>>
>>
>> On 08.05.2026 11:59, Lancelot SIX wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/05/2026 09:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> [You don't often get email from jbeulich@suse.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>>>
>>>> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 07.05.2026 21:43, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>>>> From: Lancelot Six <lancelot.six@amd.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch updates the list of supported AMDGPU architectures in bfd/
>>>>> binutils/ and include/elf/.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following architectures have been added:
>>>>>
>>>>> - gfx942
>>>>> - gfx950
>>>>> - gfx1150
>>>>> - gfx1151
>>>>> - gfx1152
>>>>> - gfx1153
>>>>> - gfx1200
>>>>> - gfx1201
>>>>> - gfx1250
>>>>>
>>>>> The following architectures have been removed:
>>>>>
>>>>> - gfx940: The compiler no longer supports it.
>>
>> If this was saying "The compiler never supported it", ...
>>
>>>> Is this a good idea? What's wrong with readelf still recognizing it?
>>>
>>> I would not mind keeping it, but I really don't expect anyone will ever
>>> encounter such binaries in the wild.
>>
>> ... I could follow you here. Can this be clarified, please?
> 
> The LLVM compiler did support it at some point.  As far as I can see, 
> this support was removed in 8615f9aaffd4337a33ea979f010c4d6410ba6125. 
> So using LLVM from just before this point can produce such binary.
> 
> I am not aware of any device where gfx940 would be used, but yes, it is 
> possible to produce the binary if with to.
> 
> As I said, I am happy to keep this in.

Please do. With it kept the entire series is okay.

Jan