echristo accepted this revision. echristo added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24979#554378, @jlebar wrote: > > I' personally would prefer to force-include these files. I suspect it will > > not change things much as we already include a lot. > > > We have already had bugs filed by users whose root cause was that we > #included more things than nvcc #includes. I know exact compatibility with > nvcc is not our goal, but unless we have a good reason I don't think we > should break compatibility with nvcc *and* the C++ standard by > force-including additional system headers. > > > This looks like fix-includes and it may be somewhat shaky if users start > > messing with include paths. > > > We add this include path first, so I think it should be OK? What do you > think, @echristo? It is very similar to fixincludes, but in this case I think it's probably the right thing. If nothing else it's very easy to change our minds later. One small wording change requested. Thanks! -eric ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/__clang_cuda_complex_builtins.h:1 @@ +1,2 @@ +/*===-- __clang_cuda_complex_builtins - CUDA impls of libgcc complex fns ----=== + * ---------------- Would swap libgcc for "runtime" https://reviews.llvm.org/D24979 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
