hsaito added a comment. In D69088#1714575 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088#1714575>, @Meinersbur wrote:
> In D69088#1714020 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088#1714020>, @hsaito wrote: > > > 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. > > > Is there anything more to do than mentioning as being it experimental in the > (no-patch-available-yet) docs? If there is a precedence, just follow that. Else, how to spell an experimental clang pragma would be a good discussion topic by itself. If I need to provide a discussion starter, I'd say how about transform_experimental instead of transform. All I ask is somehow make it easier for programmers to know it is experimental so that they won't use it w/o first reading about the current state of support. I don't have a strong opinion about how to do so. If others with stakes in loop optimizations foresee a clear enough path to get there, I won't insist this being experimental, but I would like to understand the path. Thanks, Hideki 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
