Meinersbur added a comment. In D69088#1713147 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088#1713147>, @ABataev wrote:
> Why not try to improve the existing #pragma clang loop rather than add a new > pragma with almost the same behavior? The behavior and syntax is different. #pragma clang loop ignores the order, i.e. #pragma clang loop unroll(enable) #pragma clang loop distribute(enable) and #pragma clang loop distribute(enable) #pragma clang loop unroll(enable) and #pragma clang loop unroll(enable) distribute(enable) are the same. Changing that would be a breaking change. Syntactically, every option is it's own transformation, e.g. #pragma clang loop unroll(enable) distribute(enable) unroll_count(2) could be interpreted as 3 transformations (LoopUnroll even exists twice in the pass pipeline). I prefer OpenMP's directive-with-clauses syntax, which we need to implement anyway for the OpenMP loop transformations. In the future, I would also like to add non-loop transformation, such that the `loop` namespace l Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
