> Hi Jan, hi Sebastian, > > Can you explain why you decided to replace GBB_LOOPS with > loops_mapping? > Where there any shortcomings in my implementation or did you need some > different features?
I think we got confused about the existing implementation. The concern was that a transform could affect multiple GBBs/loops, but everything is done to individual GBBs so that is not the case. > Is GBB_LOOPS completely replaced by loops_mapping? In this case I will > remove the remaining parts of GBB_LOOPS. We should remove the loops_mapping instead since the existing implementation is simpler. I tired to remove the loops_mapping and use the GBB_LOOPS instead and all the tests pass. - Jan
