On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Mark Heffernan <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > My gut feeling is: given that the feature isn't complete in 3.5, it's > not really a stealth feature so much as an incomplete work-in-progress > that people should not rely on since we're not documenting it. If we > have it documented, then it's arguable that we should be supporting it > as a feature and not changing the syntax. > > Others may have different opinions. >
*shrug* I'm fine with the work in progress aspect of it, probably shouldn't be documented. Hal has been fairly heavily involved so I'll want to wait for him to weigh in though. -eric _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
