On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Mark Heffernan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Any reason that we need them in 3.5? Correctness? >> >> My only concern is that the feature is partially in 3.5, but a >> user-facing part of that feature was changed once the freeze happened. >> Eg) #pragma clang loop unroll(enable) became #pragma clang loop >> unroll(full) > > > That's my primary concern as well. Having one release with one particular > syntax, then switch it to something else for the next release is not great. > All-in-all I'd probably prefer not supporting the unroll pragma at all in > 3.5 than have a (slightly) buggy one whose syntax will change. However, > rolling back support completely would be a bigger change than these patches.
An alternate option would be to update the documentation to remove mention of the feature. That's a much smaller change. ;-) ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
