On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Hal Finkel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > I understand that. But I'm somewhat concerned *promising* it in the pragma. It seems better to use a more generic term if there is a good one that applies, and widen seems to. > 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. > Yea, I see that too. > > 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. Indeed. This is the key part.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
