jhuber6 wrote: > > why there's a __has_builtin that's different from __can_use_builtin (or > > whatever we name it), and I don't know that any of us have an answer for > > that > > my $.02 IMO it's a side effect of heterogeneous compilation, where compiler > has to parse source code for multiple targets (and thus has to see each > target's builtins), but can generate code only for the target we're currently > compiling for. `__can_use_builtin` will give us a way to distinguish the two. > It's not a perfect tool, because usability of a builtin depends on the > context, but it's better than nothing. > > For the classic compilation, `__has_builtin` is unambiguous.
Sometimes I wonder if we should have a single way to detect if we're doing any kind of offloading so we can guard stuff like this. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126324 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
