>>! In D4089#8, @meheff wrote: > Thanks for the suggestions. They have been addressed. Pekka (cc'd) on the > optimizer patch thread suggested changing the metadata string from > llvm.loopunroll.* to llvm.loop.unroll.*. I like the suggestion as it > partitions the namespace more logically. It makes sense then similarly to > change the existing llvm.vectorizer.* and llvm.interleave.* names to > llvm.loop.vectorizer.* and llvm.loop.interleave.*. Anybody have an opinion? > > If I do make this change, then there will be a mismatch between the emitted > metadata names for the vectorizer and what the optimizer expects. What's the > protocol for handling this? Is submitting the optimizer change immediately > after this clang change good enough?
In any case, I'd leave changing the vectorize/interleave names to a separate patch, after this one lands. http://reviews.llvm.org/D4089 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
