dmgreen added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47267#1123318, @hfinkel wrote:
> I have a preference for using the underscores as our primary spelling. I > think that it's easier to read. I agree with it being easier to read. > I prefer we have a different syntax that we can use consistently within the > 'clang loop' pragmas. How about 'unroll_and_jam disable' or similar? The code I had for #pragma clang loop (now in https://reviews.llvm.org/D47320, although I may not have split all the relevant parts into there) was doing the same thing as the unroll code. So worked the same way, I think looking like "#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(disable)" vs enable. It sounds sensible to me to have these look the same way as unroll clang loop pragmas, for both the old syntax and the new from the RFC. https://reviews.llvm.org/D47267 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
