Anastasia added a comment. In D137652#3957519 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137652#3957519>, @svenvh wrote:
>> @svenvh I remember that we have also discussed the addition of a vendor >> specific header where such feature/extension macro definition can be added >> to avoid the macro pollution but I feel this is somewhat orthogonal i.e. the >> fine grained control of macro defines is still needed? > > Unfortunately I don't remember the details of that discussion, but I agree > that it's worth looking into a solution for issue #55674, using e.g. > `__undef` macros as you described above. I assume we could start from something simple i.e. without the need to amend `-cl-ext`. So let's say we could add the following guards in the header: #ifndef __undef_feature1 #define feature1 1 #endif Then we can pass `-D__undef_feature1` instead of `-cl-std=-feature1` and `-Dfeature1=1` instead of `-cl-std=+feature1`. Then later if needed we could extend `-cl-ext` to set those `__undef_<feature name>` instead. We could also add a macro that corresponds to `-cl-ext=-all` and etc. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137652/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137652 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
