Seems like the feature missed the boat unless there's a particularly compelling reason. We usually do time based releases and not feature based.
Any reason that we need them in 3.5? Correctness? -eric On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Mark Heffernan <[email protected]> wrote: > Ping? Hal or Aaron? Is it too late to get these in? I was on vacation > last week so wasn't able to follow up earlier on this. > > Thanks, > Mark > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Mark Heffernan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Below are a handful of patches I submitted last week for the loop unroll >> pragma which would be nice to get into 3.5. The bug fix and metadata >> renaming ones I'd particularly like to see get in. The "#pragma nounroll" >> is more of a nice-to-have. All of the patches should only affect code which >> uses one of the forms of the loop unroll pragmas. >> >> Rename metadata. In unroll pragma syntax and loop hint metadata, change >> "enable" forms to a new form using the string "full": >> r213771 (clang) >> r213772 (llvm) >> r213775 (fix broken test caused by r213771) >> >> Add support for #pragma nounroll : >> r213885 >> >> Bug fixes: >> r213789 : Do not add unroll disable metadata after unrolling pass for >> loops with #pragma clang loop unroll(full). >> r213900 : Fix bug where some loops with loop unroll_count(N) would >> mistakenly not be unrolled. >> >> Let me know if these are reasonable. >> >> Thanks! >> Mark > > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
