Ericson2314 added a comment.
One that that might make my position clearer is to substitute the name "build",
"host", and "target" for "build", "run", and "emit". [A colleague of mine
proposed these alternative names and I do think they are vastly more human
friendly.]
Then if we write
int main(void) {
#if __is_run(window)
printf("Hello, Satya");
#elif __is_run(darwin)
printf("Hello, Tim");
#else
prinf("Unclear who I am talking too.");
#endif
#if __is_emit(darwin)
#error "What's a Mach-O?"
#else
/* do something with binutils */
#endif
return 0;
}
and run
clang -emit something main.c
it is clear the intention is *not* for `-emit` to control `__is_emit`.
To me, this makes clear that the problem isn't the name-shift I am proposing,
but the inherent vagary of the terms "host" and "target" relative to their
specific meaning in Autoconf's jargon.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44753
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
