================
@@ -204,6 +205,10 @@ static cl::opt<bool>
EnableLoopInterchange("enable-loopinterchange", cl::init(false),
cl::Hidden,
cl::desc("Enable the LoopInterchange Pass"));
+static cl::opt<bool> EnableLoopFusion("enable-loopfusion", cl::init(false),
----------------
kasuga-fj wrote:
> I see the precedence in the code. In
> `flang/include/flang/Frontend/CodegenOptions.def` I see options for
> loop-versioning, unrolling etc. I see clang and flang differ here. clang
> doesn't seem to have such options except for `floop-interchange`.
I didn't really understand what you meant... There is a clang option
`-funroll-loops`.
> I can remove the change from `PassBuilderPipelines.cpp` i.e. EnableFusion, as
> it can be redundant.
I didn't mean it is redundant. It might be useful if we want to turn on/off the
loop-fusion via opt command. What I meant is, if you also want to add both
clang/flang and opt options, then you should move EnableFusion into proper
place (maybe it is `tools/opt/NewPMDriver.cpp`).
At the moment, I don’t have any strong objections to adding experimental flags
to clang, although I'm not sure if there's an existing policy on clang side for
such cases.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142686
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
