hsaito added a comment. In D69088#1714019 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088#1714019>, @Meinersbur wrote:
> 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>. Personally, I like the intent. I don't foresee a clear (enough) path to get there. This leads to hesitation of adding a new non-experimental pragma and present it to programmers. If you call it experimental, it's easier for me to swallow. 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
