[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cfe-dev
Subject:    Re: [cfe-dev] [PROPOSAL] Reintroduce guards for Intel intrinsic headers
From:       Eric Christopher <echristo () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-07-30 18:19:54
Message-ID: CALehDX7fg_4K=-U-w2Ef4JcGZH=vRDrcfiXNsiNgC4XwELYV_Q () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:04 AM Reid Kleckner <rnk@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> What kind of file is this? Keep in mind that things in the global
>> namespace prefixed with an underscore is a reserved name for implementers
>> as well. That would make this code not standards compliant as well.
>>
>
> The actual C++ rules are that any name with double underscores is
> reserved, and names beginning with an underscore followed by a capital
> letter. So, the Intel intrinsics are *not* in the implementer's namespace,
> but that was probably a mistake.
>

I was pretty sure that what you're quoting is in any namespace, but in the
global namespace it's what I said? I'd have to double check.


>
> I'm sympathetic to users who are probably implementing a compatibility
> layer here and don't want to write their own intrinsic wrappers, but I
> think the right tradeoff is probably to fix the code.
>

Agreed here.

-eric

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 \
at 11:04 AM Reid Kleckner &lt;<a href="mailto:rnk@google.com">rnk@google.com</a>&gt; \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div \
class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Eric \
Christopher <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:echristo@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">echristo@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>What kind of \
file is this? Keep in mind that things in the global namespace prefixed with an \
underscore is a reserved name for implementers as well. That would make this code not \
standards compliant as \
well.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div><div \
dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>The actual C++ rules \
are that any name with double underscores is reserved, and names beginning with an \
underscore followed by a capital letter. So, the Intel intrinsics are *not* in the \
implementer&#39;s namespace, but that was probably a \
mistake.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I was pretty sure \
that what you&#39;re quoting is in any namespace, but in the global namespace \
it&#39;s what I said? I&#39;d have to double check.</div><div>  </div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m sympathetic to users who are probably \
implementing a compatibility layer here and don&#39;t want to write their own \
intrinsic wrappers, but I think the right tradeoff is probably to fix the \
code.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed \
here.</div><div><br></div><div>-eric  </div></div></div>



_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]