Subject: Re: [boost] [predef] Fails on Intel/win
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-12 14:20:02
On Jul 12, 2015 11:22 AM, "John Maddock" <jz.maddock_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> So it should be.. INTEL, EDG EMULATED, and GNUC EMULATED? Should it
>> be the case that EDG be marked as EMULATED?
> Good question, we have a few different situations here:
> * The compiler vendor (Intel in this case).
> * Some other compiler they may be emulating (GCC or MSVC in Intel's case).
> * The compiler front-end used (EDG in this case).
> * The compiler back-end used (Intel in this case).
Right.. And I brought this issue up long ago :)
> A similar situation occurs with IBM's new Intel compiler, which uses the
clang front-end but isn't really clang (it has some features clang doesn't
have, some regular clang features are unimplemented, and the usual llvm
back-end has been replaced by IBM's as far as I know).
Yep.. And IIRC they unfortunately did not remove the llvm defs when they
striped it out.
> So given that there is no EDG compiler as such, and since we're certainly
not emulating EDG, I would vote for something like BOOST_FRONTEND_EDG (or
some similar variation).
It would be BOOST COMP EDG FRONTEND. As that follows general pattern of it
being a part / variation of a compiler.
So are EDG and clang the only frontends?
Should we also have backbend definitions?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk