Meinersbur added a comment. In D69088#1713933 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088#1713933>, @hsaito wrote:
> Have we established general consensus for the desire to have the flexible > enough loop optimization pass ordering to accomplish the outcome of the new > directive, and shared vision for the path to get there? If we are making this > a general clang directive, I'd like to see the vision to get there w/o > depending on polly. If this is already discussed and settled, pointer to that > is appreciated so that I can learn. Response to the RFCs was meager. However, I got positive feedback at various conferences, including last year's DevMtg where my version for loop transformations was a technical talk <https://youtu.be/QpvZt9w-Jik?t=813>. 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
