On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:
On 09/12/2023 13:35, Adriaan van Os via fpc-devel wrote:Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:So if/when we would get FPC equivalents of such directives, I could translate those to LLVM IR as well.Then I suggest the following (and I can prepare a patch to the code and docs if it were to be accepted)$vectorize ON} {$vectorize OFF} {$vectorize WIDTH=VALUE} {$vectorize TYPE=FIXED} {$vectorize TYPE=SCALABLE} {$vectorize PREDICATE=ON} {$vectorize PREDICATE=OFF}For a description, see <https://llvm.org/docs/Vectorizers.html#command-line-flags>. And{$unroll ON} {$unroll OFF} {$unroll FULL} {$unroll COUNT=VALUE}For a description, see<https://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#extensions-for-loop-hint-optimizations>.I'd rather not introduce directives that are specific to clang, and especially none only apply to the next loop. We don't have a single directive yet that works like this.Maybe attributes would be more appropriate, although I don't think Delphi (or FPC) currently supports attributes for statements.
Please don't:
Attributes are designed for runtime consumption. I'm heavily opposed to
start using them to influence the code generation. The compiler should
remain ignorant of their meaning and use.
Maybe a single {$PRAGMA XYZ} directive can be introduced to control this
kind of stuff, with a fixed list of XYZ.
Backends can intepret the XYZ pragmas as they see fit.
Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
