On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:30 AM, David Blaikie via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > This seems like a different tradeoff from the one Clang made for GCC > compatibility (we define all the GCC macros, but then also define others so > people can detect Clang). If people were just disabling features that NVCC > didn't support, that seems fairly harmless - what sort of > problems/difficulties did this create? >
I think Clang is aiming for less bug-for-bug compatibility with NVCC than with GCC or Clang, so it makes less sense to pretend to be them. I also expect that there are fewer checks in the wild for __NVCC__ than for _MSC_VER and __GNUC__. If we didn't *have* to define these macros to build the world, we wouldn't, and if we can get away without defining __NVCC__, that's great.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
