----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <[email protected]> > To: "Hal Finkel" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Nadav Rotem" <[email protected]>, "Alexey Bataev" > <[email protected]>, "llvm cfe" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:40:49 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] #pragma vectorize > > > > FWIW, only joining in the naming side of the discussion ... > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Hal Finkel < [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > I also like ‘interleave’. > > > > I like this as well. > I very much dislike the term 'interleave'. We had a great deal of > trouble with this term in the C++ committee. There are execution > models which want this information but do not guarantee > "interleaved" execution, and this is observable.
In this particular case, I think this objection is misplaced. The particular transformation that we're discussing is, literally, one that provides interleaving of loop iterations. We could also call it unsequenced (as I mentioned in some earlier e-mail), but in some sense, this transformation is more specific than that. > > > Interleaved also seems to be promising much more than it can if this > pragma does not assert safety. Agreed; but we should keep the interleave (or whatever we call it) and the vectorize pragma consistent in this regard. > > > If this is just a cost model hint, I like "widen" quite a bit better, > and maybe there is a way to work "hint" or "cost" into the name? In some sense it is a cost model hint, but I'm not sure a user would see it as such. Using hint for the non-safety-asserting variants seems like a good idea. We should be clear with the users whether they are providing only a hint, or asserting something more. -Hal -- 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
