Nadav, Arnold, I think this makes sense. Do either of you object?
-Hal ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Heffernan" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], "cfe-commits" <[email protected]>, "Hal > Finkel" <[email protected]>, "Tyler > Nowicki" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 3:44:00 PM > Subject: Rename metadata llvm.loop.vectorize.unroll to > llvm.loop.vectorize.interleave > > > This patch rename metadata llvm.loop.vectorize.unroll to > llvm.loop.vectorize.interleave to avoid confusion with the > concatenation unroller metadata (llvm.loop.unroll). It fell out of a > discussion on patch http://reviews.llvm.org/D4576 . On that patch > there was some confusion about whether llvm.loop.vectorize.unroll > controlled the traditional (concatenation) loop unroller. And IIRC > this isn't the first time there has been this confusion. Renaming > vectorize.unroll to vectorize.interleave also more closely matches > the pragma which generates the metadata (#pragma clang loop > interleave_count). There are still lots of uses of "unroll" within > the code in function/variable names and comments. I have no > intention of changing those. > > > Mark -- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
