awarzynski added a comment. In D96771#2628691 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96771#2628691>, @svenvh wrote:
> In D96771#2626507 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96771#2626507>, @Anastasia wrote: > >> I had a second thought about the extension name and I realized that the >> reason why I initially wanted to use `clcpp` is that it aligns better with >> `clc++` which is used in `-cl-std`. Even though from the RFC the preference >> was towards `cppcl` it felt like there was no objection to `clcpp` either. >> So I just want to check one last time whether it would make sense to align >> with `clc++` and use `clcpp`. Perhaps, it make clang interface a bit more >> inconsistent? > > That is a good point, in my opinion aligning with the `-cl-std` flag is a > good reason to go for `.clcpp`. I would recommend mentioning this on the RfC > thread too, to ensure that people who suggested a slight preference for the > other extension are okay with `.clcpp` too. +1 for consistency. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96771/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96771 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
