On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > If having a stealth feature like that is reasonable, I'm happy to remove mention of it from the docs. More specifically any mention of the following would be removed: '#pragma unroll', '#pragma clang loop unroll', '#pragma clang loop unroll_count', and 'llvm.loop.unroll.*' metadata. Mark
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
