mantognini added a comment. In D89372#2329939 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D89372#2329939>, @yaxunl wrote:
> what if users rely on the predefined macros associated with the extension > e.g. cl_khr_srgb_image_writes to enable/disable certain code? > > What's the issue with these extensions not removed? I meant to add a link to the RFC that highlighted the issue: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2020-September/066911.html In a nutshell, those extensions I'm removing are not language extensions but api extensions. I can't think of the usefulness of these macros -- if the host doesn't support the extensions, the kernels relying on those cannot be executed (i.e. it makes no sense). @Anastasia also highlights in her comment that having these increases the complexity and maintenance burden in the ecosystem. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D89372/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D89372 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
