jvesely added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:2024-2025
@@ -2023,2 +2023,4 @@
Builder.defineMacro("__HAS_LDEXPF__");
+ if (hasFP64)
+ Builder.defineMacro("__HAS_FP64__");
}
----------------
arsenm wrote:
> I don't think we need this. I want device macros for other tuning and
> intrinsic availability reasons. Right now there are builtins that only work
> on some subtargets but no way to test for that
Why not have macro per feature that determines intrinsic/optimization
availability?
it was preferred last year [0]
at least on r600 it works nicer than separating
EG/EG+FP64/NI_but_eg_isa/NI+FP64+CM_ISA
and the feature selection is done in two places (llvm+clang) instead of every
piece of compiled code.
[0]http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20150420/127643.html
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20388
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
