----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Christopher" <[email protected]> > To: "Aaron Ballman" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Mark Heffernan" <[email protected]>, "Hal Finkel" <[email protected]>, > "cfe-commits" <[email protected]>, > [email protected] > Sent: Monday, August 4, 2014 12:50:21 PM > Subject: Re: release_35 patches for unroll pragma > > 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.
Unfortunately, I was on vacation that week, and I'm still playing catch-up on my e-mail... At this point I think it is too late to pull in these kinds of changes, but, if we didn't previously, we should add auto-upgrade support for the renamed metadata. -Hal > > -eric > -- 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
