On Jul 12, 2015 11:22 AM, "John Maddock"
So it should be.. INTEL, EDG EMULATED, and GNUC EMULATED? Should it
always
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has some features clang doesn't have, some regular clang features are unimplemented, and the usual llvm back-end has been replaced by IBM's as far as I know).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?