[Openmp-dev] OpenMP and C++

[C Bergström via Openmp-dev]

If you plan to introduce C++ officially, would you mind have a
discussion on which parts of the C++ language are ok and which are not
ok. I'd be strongly in favor of not using RTTI and EH. I think both of
those should be disabled in the build and never used. (Performance
reasons)

There are also a few c++11 things which are popular, but may not
always make sense. Stuff like that can be handled on a case-by-case
basis.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Hal Finkel via Openmp-dev
<openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Terry L via Openmp-dev Wilmarth" <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> To: "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com>, openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 1:06:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] LLVM coding conventions an the OpenMP runtime
>>
>> A second thing we are considering (and apologies for leaving this out
>> of the original message) is the renaming of .c files to .cpp.   As
>> the runtime evolves, C++ has been used more and more.
>
> Yes, please. That would be great.
>
>>
>> So the file renaming is something else to consider, either separately
>> or in conjunction with the code formatting changes.
>
> Please do this in a separate commit. On the off-chance that this introduces a behavioral change, I'd like to be able to bisect to just this change.
>
>  -Hal
>
>>
>> -Terry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Openmp-dev [mailto:openmp-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf
>> Of Chris Lattner via Openmp-dev
>> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:17 AM
>> To: C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
>> Cc: LLVM-OpenMP (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org)
>> <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] LLVM coding conventions an the OpenMP
>> runtime
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2016, at 1:23 AM, C Bergström via Openmp-dev
>> <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > Pragmatically and just my view - If the research is open and
>> > there's a
>> > plan to integrate it back I'm empathetic. If it's closed and just
>> > an
>> > outside fork, I don't care what you do and it shouldn't block an
>> > open
>> > source project.
>>
>> +1, this is consistent with the overall LLVM approach.
>>
>> The open source project can’t be concerned with every private fork
>> that may be maintained, and worrying about that often cuts against
>> the bests interests of the project (which is to always move
>> forward).
>>
>> Additionally, it is arguably *better* for the open source project to
>> have a bit of churn in the code, because this makes it more painful
>> to maintain out of tree branches. This is one way to encourage these
>> private branches to be contributed back to mainline, instead of
>> being kept proprietary.
>>
>> -Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openmp-dev mailing list
>> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openmp-dev mailing list
>> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>>
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
> _______________________________________________
> Openmp-dev mailing list
> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev