hfinkel added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31417#886826, @huntergr wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31417#886441, @hfinkel wrote: > > > Is this still being worked on? > > > Hi, yes it is. Sorry for the delay in posting new changes but priorities > shifted a bit and I had to work on something else for a while. No problem. > I do have a new version that's just about ready based on Alexey's idea. Simd > constructs work, and non-simd constructs just pass the code straight through; > combined constructs pose a bit of an issue, since they will have captured > stmts from non-simd directives as well. Some additional work will be needed > to handle that case. I'll post what I have after a bit of tidying for > comments and suggestions; it's possible that the mixed case could be dealt > with in another patch. Splitting patches in this way is generally a good idea. The other thing I'd like in this regard is some kind of preprocessor feature that my users can use to test whether OpenMP SIMD is supported. Enabling -fopenmp-simd won't define _OPENMP (at least I suspect that it shouldn't because there might not be a meaningful <omp.h> to include). Maybe we should make `#if __has_extension(openmp_simd)` work? https://reviews.llvm.org/D31417 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
