[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:       Vedant Kumar <vsk () apple ! com>
Date:       2015-07-30 18:27:21
Message-ID: FAC07A5E-2A86-400B-BF65-3EB02BCD1F30 () apple ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

> On Jul 30, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I don't see any downsides to reintroducing these guards.
> 
> Then you weren't really paying attention to the point of removing them :)
> 
> The idea is so that the headers can be used, with appropriate target attributes, \
> for any code.

Right, I thought about this but wasn't sure if there were benefits to having symbols \
available for an unsupported target.

I.e, is there some reason a project might want to include the header for SSE4 \
intrinsics if it can't use any of those symbols?

> 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.

It's a utility header in a C project.

> 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.

Ok. It seems like the consensus is that Eric's patch does the right thing -- and I \
actually agree with that.

I'm just not 100% convinced that removing the header guards was necessary (which, I \
admit, could just be due to a lack of understanding on my part).

I checked with gcc trunk and they've taken the same approach, so at least it'll all \
be consistent.

vedant
_______________________________________________
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]