Anastasia added a comment. I had a second thought about the extension name and I realized that the reason why I initially wanted to use `clcpp` is that it aligns better with `clc++` which is used in `-cl-std`. Even though from the RFC the preference was towards `cppcl` it felt like there was no objection to `clcpp` either. So I just want to check one last time whether it would make sense to align with `clc++` and use `clcpp`. Perhaps, it make clang interface a bit more inconsistent?
================ Comment at: clang/test/Driver/cxx_for_opencl.cppcl:1 +// RUN: %clang %s -Xclang -verify -fsyntax-only +// RUN: %clang %s -cl-std=clc++ -Xclang -verify -fsyntax-only ---------------- awarzynski wrote: > This is a very neat test. Would it make sense to add something more basic > too? For example (in a separate file): > > ``` > // RUN: %clang %s -fstynax-only -### | FileCheck %s > > // CHECK: -x -cppcl > ``` > > This way you would have a bit more explicit test to verifiy that the compiler > driver picks the right language based on the extension. Good idea! Thanks! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96771/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96771 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
